Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Posted by DOC:
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian,
Posted by X:
LIAR!
So skeptics have invented a new way of thinking -- a truth becomes a lie if you don't mention another truth. So if you say Jesus condones slavery and you don't mention that only two translations use the word slave and around 9 translations use the word servant according to your belief you are committing the lie of omission because you fail to inform people that the great majority of translations don't translate it as slave.
So according to your belief you have lied to us many times for several months.
No, I am intentionally using the quote as "some evidence" for the argument that Luke's writings should be considered truthful. You still don't seem to have totally grasped the difference between evidence and proof.
I have never said we should use Ramsay's statement praising Luke's historical skills as proof as to why we should trust his accounts of the resurrection. But once again it is "some evidence" that Luke is considered a very skilled historian by several academics and this gives us some additional evidence for the argument that the NT writers told the truth. It is not proof the NT writers told the truth but it helps my case more so than if this famous academic did not say anything about Luke's academic skills. If something helps my argument then if fits the definition of evidence from post #13.
A thing of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement.
No, it doesn't because I never have said that Ramsay's statement calling Luke one of the world's great historians proves that the religious elements are true.
Your URL is not working but even if it did it wouldn't matter because I have never said that Ramsay's statement praising Luke's historical skills proves that the religious elements are true.
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay called gospel writer Luke a great historian,
Posted by X:
LIAR!
So skeptics have invented a new way of thinking -- a truth becomes a lie if you don't mention another truth. So if you say Jesus condones slavery and you don't mention that only two translations use the word slave and around 9 translations use the word servant according to your belief you are committing the lie of omission because you fail to inform people that the great majority of translations don't translate it as slave.
So according to your belief you have lied to us many times for several months.
No, I am intentionally using the quote as "some evidence" for the argument that Luke's writings should be considered truthful. You still don't seem to have totally grasped the difference between evidence and proof.
I have never said we should use Ramsay's statement praising Luke's historical skills as proof as to why we should trust his accounts of the resurrection. But once again it is "some evidence" that Luke is considered a very skilled historian by several academics and this gives us some additional evidence for the argument that the NT writers told the truth. It is not proof the NT writers told the truth but it helps my case more so than if this famous academic did not say anything about Luke's academic skills. If something helps my argument then if fits the definition of evidence from post #13.
A thing of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement.
No, it doesn't because I never have said that Ramsay's statement calling Luke one of the world's great historians proves that the religious elements are true.
Your URL is not working but even if it did it wouldn't matter because I have never said that Ramsay's statement praising Luke's historical skills proves that the religious elements are true.
Last edited:
When the part of the quote you are omitting goes on to specifically exclude the supernatural parts of the bible, which is what you are using the quote to support, then you cannot claim the quote supports your position. When you have had that pointed out to you several times, if you persist, then, yes, it is lying.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I'm not calling you a liar,
Just don't lie to me.
And I'll love you so much,
I'm gonna let you . . .
I'm not calling you a thief,
Just stop,
And I'll love you so much,
I'm gonna let you . . .
Oh,
I'm not calling you a ghost,
Just stop. . .
There's a ghost in my mouth
Who talks in my sleep,
Wraps itself around my tongue
As it softly speaks,
Then it walks,
Then it walks,
Then it walks with my legs,
To fall
To fall, at your feet.
- Florence and the Machine
Just don't lie to me.
And I'll love you so much,
I'm gonna let you . . .
I'm not calling you a thief,
Just stop,
And I'll love you so much,
I'm gonna let you . . .
Oh,
I'm not calling you a ghost,
Just stop. . .
There's a ghost in my mouth
Who talks in my sleep,
Wraps itself around my tongue
As it softly speaks,
Then it walks,
Then it walks,
Then it walks with my legs,
To fall
To fall, at your feet.
- Florence and the Machine
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
thank you for proving that you've been lying all along.
But in the thread of "why we know the writers told the truth", you use the quote. You intentionally mislead people into thinking that Ramsay thinks Luke is equally reliable on religious elements as with none religious elements. this is false.
You may attempt to pretend that you don't intend to be missleading, but then you would have admitted that Ramsay didn't think Luke was reliable on matters of miracles. You didn't. you avoided such admissions, demonstrating your dishonesty.
Your current attempt of limiting the scope of your use of the quote (and your failure to limit it previously) is proof that your omission was intentional and a Lie.
------
*Example of lies of omission:
If I said, "I hate people who say I eat babies."
and you said,
Joobz says, "I eat babies."
That is also a lie of omission.
Stating that dolous = slave is simply accurate and not a lie.
I'm not omitting a part of a quote. You need to rephrase this.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
here is the link with reference to what Ramsay ACTUALLY said. Yes, I gave a faulty link, but X corrected it. If you were an honest individual, you would have used his link instead of avoiding it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5093485#post5093485
Lothian
should be banned
How about
1) "there is cherry picking going on. In other words you don't want people to read his statement in context." or
2) "regarding Ramsay .... it could argued there is cherry picking occurring" or
3) "how come you don't give the url. What url are you getting this from so we can read it in context. By not giving the URL it gives the impression of cherry picking." or
4) "Talk about cherry picking at its worst"
You have mentioned Ramsay 83 times yet you have never linked to his original words. You cherry pick out the part about Luke's historical knowledge when you know the full quote says the trust in Luke can not be extended to the supernatural claims. You accept that Luke's historical knowledge says nothing about the topic of this thread; the supernatural claims in the N.T..
If not actually lying your behaviour is dishonest.
Last edited:
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
DOC:
Victor Hugo wrote stories.
In these stories, he included actual people, actual historical events, actual cities, actual countries, actual religions, and so-on.
The fact that his books accurately describe these things is not evidence that the stories he wrote are true.
The accuracy of the accounts of the argot, the sewers, the Battle of Waterloo, the Republican Insurrection in Paris are not in any way evidence that Hugo was writing a factual tale.
Alexandre Dumas wrote stories.
In these stories, he included actual people, actual historical events, actual cities, actual countries, actual religions, and so-on.
The fact that his books accurately describe these things is not evidence that the stories he wrote are true.
His accounts of Napoleon, Paris, the religious institutions, kings, technology and shipping are not in any way evidence that Dumas was writing a factual tale.
The same could be said for many many authors.
You are attempting to argue that because the author of Luke (there is NO evidence it was the apostle Luke, as you so fondly believe, and plenty of evidence it was not) got some historical details accurate, it is evidence that he was writing a factual tale.
This is not the case.
I've pointed out the above problem with that logic before (and again at the top of this post). Other people have pointed it out.
The caveats on Ramsay's quote, which you constantly take out of context (read: quote-mining) which would cast doubt on the idea that the author of Luke wrote the truth, have been pointed out to you.
Therefore, the argument that "Luke was a great historian" as evidence that the author of Luke was writing factual events is not only incorrect, but is indeed a lie, because the flows in that argument have been shown to you repeatedly.
Thus, you are LYING when you make that argument.
It has been shown repeatedly to be wrong on multiple levels, yet you still use it, knowing that it is wrong. Which is intellectually dishonest.
You are lying, and that makes you a liar.
As such, I will continue to call you a liar every time you broach that argument, for lying is what you are doing.
Victor Hugo wrote stories.
In these stories, he included actual people, actual historical events, actual cities, actual countries, actual religions, and so-on.
The fact that his books accurately describe these things is not evidence that the stories he wrote are true.
The accuracy of the accounts of the argot, the sewers, the Battle of Waterloo, the Republican Insurrection in Paris are not in any way evidence that Hugo was writing a factual tale.
Alexandre Dumas wrote stories.
In these stories, he included actual people, actual historical events, actual cities, actual countries, actual religions, and so-on.
The fact that his books accurately describe these things is not evidence that the stories he wrote are true.
His accounts of Napoleon, Paris, the religious institutions, kings, technology and shipping are not in any way evidence that Dumas was writing a factual tale.
The same could be said for many many authors.
You are attempting to argue that because the author of Luke (there is NO evidence it was the apostle Luke, as you so fondly believe, and plenty of evidence it was not) got some historical details accurate, it is evidence that he was writing a factual tale.
This is not the case.
I've pointed out the above problem with that logic before (and again at the top of this post). Other people have pointed it out.
The caveats on Ramsay's quote, which you constantly take out of context (read: quote-mining) which would cast doubt on the idea that the author of Luke wrote the truth, have been pointed out to you.
Therefore, the argument that "Luke was a great historian" as evidence that the author of Luke was writing factual events is not only incorrect, but is indeed a lie, because the flows in that argument have been shown to you repeatedly.
Thus, you are LYING when you make that argument.
It has been shown repeatedly to be wrong on multiple levels, yet you still use it, knowing that it is wrong. Which is intellectually dishonest.
You are lying, and that makes you a liar.
As such, I will continue to call you a liar every time you broach that argument, for lying is what you are doing.
Well you know because of the post below (that you responded to) that the title of this thread was a spur of the moment thing (using some of Geisler's language of his chapter 11 title), and I have said at least twice in this thread that I would use a different title if I could. I have said I would change the title to "Evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5459104#post5459104
People might get misled by their own false thinking, but I have never said Ramsay's praising of Luke as being one of the world's greatest historians proves the miracle elements of the bible. If that is someones own false thinking so be it. People are trying to make apples oranges by saying my truthful statements about Ramsay are a lie.
Skeptics hate someone of Ramsay's prestige saying Luke was one of the world's greatest historians and some will twist logic by trying to turn truths into lies.
I never would have admitted it because it is not true. Ramsay never said or implied that he didn't think Luke was reliable on matters of miracles.
Since your previous sentence is false, the above statement means nothing
But you're omitting that this Greek word can also mean servant, and the wording of "servant" especially applies to the culture of Palestine at that time which was shown in a website that was brought into this or the slavery thread. You say I'm a liar for omitting things but you constantly do the same thing. That is a double standard.
Last edited:
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Why would you be so insistent on Luke's being "one of the world's greatest historians" unless you wanted to at least imply that his reliability on factual matters shows that his statements on other matters are at least as authoritative?
In other words, if you don't want to use Luke's reliability as a historian as evidence that the other things he wrote are also true, why are you bringing it up at all?
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
FTFY, 'Liz
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Doesn't change the fact that your quote mine is a lie.
But you intentionally conflate the two. You are trying to provide evidence that the bible is true. Meaning 100% true. What you are attempting to do is give evidence that the miracles are true. Ramsay's quote ONLY extends to extraneous historical points NOT to matters regarding religious significance (E.g., miracles, Jesus begin god...)
No. I hate people who lie about what others say. You are lying about when you quote Ramsay.
Yes he did. He clearly stated that miracles are not a matter of historical accuracy. That's effectively saying that Luke isn't reliable on the subject. In other words, attempting to increase Luke's reputation as a historian is meaningless when discussing the truthfulness of the bible's miracle accounts.
Ramsay knew this, you intentionally ignore this.
Nope, you lied and are only digging deeper into the lie.
No double standard.
You quote mined. You intentionally mislead what Ramsay said, and you never once admitted that Ramsay was not referring to the miracles or religious aspects of the bible when making his statement.
I gave a clear definition of what Dolous means.
Slave, in particular "Bond-servant" Which can often be shortened to mean Servant. However, it IS most often a slave. So my definition is solid. But, I had even for sake of argument, allowed the use of servant. By explaining that I find it evil that Jesus condones the beating of servants. Regardless of which way you look at it, jesus is (by modern definitions) immoral.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
Think the mighty historian Lee Falk forged the story from the N/T about the ''Place Of The Skull'' and about a ''Ghost Who Walks''?
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
I''l answer for DOC. Yes they are telling the truth concerning the city of Jerusalem. No doubt that city was there in the first century. As for the rest, NO.
If you are trying to say that you are using Ramsay to support the truth of the non-supernatural elements of the bible, then that in itself is dishonest. You are not making that clear when you keep referring to him, and it is notable that you do not refer to his own disclaimers about his view of the reliability of the author of Luke. It is also misleading, if that is what you are doing, because it is largely the supernatural aspects which are significant; it does not add a great deal if the mundane aspects are shown not to be false (although it would clearly hurt the credibility of the bible if those were discredited).
No, they're pointing out your false and misleading statements.
Such as this one:
That's exactly what he did do. If you are not able to understand this, which has been pointed out numerous times, then you are simply not capable of a rational debate.
Here is the complete post that Lothian made, since you seem incapable of following a link to it:
I didn't have to because any 8th grader who read the website below that I have brought into this thread at least 4 times would see that none of the 84 highly detailed facts that Luke gets right is a miracle.
Scroll down this website a few seconds and you will see the 84 facts:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643
All this DOC your a liar crap (which of course I deny) is much ado about nothing. You're trying to make a big deal out of some point that would be obvious to anyone who spent 5 minutes doing further research on Ramsay. And many people would probably assume it anyway.
Bottom line is that Ramsay said Luke is one of the world's great historians and saying that once, saying that 10 times, saying that 1000 times is not a lie no matter how hard skeptics try to make it one.
And in a way I'm glad you keep trying to say it is a lie because it seriously hurts your credibility to do so. So keep it up, all the hoopla might distract a few people, but I seriously do believe it is going to hurt some skeptics credibility to keep calling a true fact a lie.
Last edited:
- Status