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

[DOC]

The question that I have for DOC is:
What is the purpose of bringing Rasmey into the discussion at all?

Well it certainly doesn't hurt to have well respected archaeologist and former skeptic Sir W. M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging and studying in biblical lands to call the author of the Luke and Acts one of the world's greatest historians.

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

Also Ramsay discovered important information about the Luke census, Quirinius, and other facts.

Several websites also say the former skeptic Ramsay became a Christian after his 15 year study.

 

[DOC]

The question that I have for DOC is:
What is the purpose of bringing Rasmey into the discussion at all?

Well it certainly doesn't hurt to have well respected archaeologist and former skeptic Sir W. M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging and researching in biblical lands to call the author of the Luke and Acts one of the world's greatest historians.

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

Also Ramsay discovered important information about the Luke census, Quirinius, and other facts.

Several websites also say the former skeptic Ramsay became a Christian after his 15 year study.

http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

 

[Hokulele]

Several websites also say the former skeptic Ramsay became a Christian after his 15 year study.

http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

Conservapedia? Seriously?

*Snork*


I really thought you would have learned something about reliable sources after the whole Neo-Nazi hate site flap, but nooooo....

 

[Lothian]

Well it certainly doesn't hurt to have well respected archaeologist and former skeptic Sir W. M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging and studying in biblical lands to call the author of the Luke and Acts one of the world's greatest historians.

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

Also Ramsay discovered important information about the Luke census, Quirinius, and other facts.

Several websites also say the former skeptic Ramsay became a Christian after his 15 year study.

But Ramsay found no evidence for the supernatural facts. Geisler's huge leap in logic was expressly denied by Ramsey who expressly said that the only way to believe the essential parts of the story is through faith.

You have brought up Geisler over 84 times he does not support your arguments. Facts about the census do not support a magic God/Son/Ghost thingy.

Do you have any "evidence" for the truth of the NT other than "some mundane facts in the bible about the region are true therefore all the supernatural bits are as well" or is that pathetic argument all you have?

 

[DOC]

But Ramsay found no evidence for the supernatural facts...

This is all off the cuff because I'm a little tired and I remember reading something about this somewhere but here it goes:

Evidence for supernatural facts would in many cases need supernatural evidence. Thus your asking for a miracle to prove a miracle. For example how do you prove Christ changed water into wine to people 2000 years later. It would take supernatural evidence to do that. How do you prove Christ rose from the dead. It would take Christ to supernaturally appear to you. You want a miracle to prove a miracle. The miracles of Christ can't be proved by anything but supernatural evidence. Thus it can be argued skeptics are asking for too much because they are asking for miracles when they are asking for evidence of supernatural facts.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well it certainly doesn't hurt to have well respected archaeologist and former skeptic Sir W. M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging and researching in biblical lands to call the author of the Luke and Acts one of the world's greatest historians.

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

Also Ramsay discovered important information about the Luke census, Quirinius, and other facts.

Several websites also say the former skeptic Ramsay became a Christian after his 15 year study.

http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

Well, Watermen, there you go. No need for me to look up the posts, Doc brought it to you.


This, DOC, is exactly what you said you didn't do. You're are attempting to equate Luke's abilities with non-supernatural history to Luke's abilities with supernatural history, using your quote-mine of Ramsey to support it.



And as for your last post, Doc...of course we ask for supernatural evidence of the supernatural. Natural evidence for the supernatural would not suffice strictly because natural evidence does not prove anything supernatural. Kinda how that whole evidence thing works.

 

[X]

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

I thought you weren't trying to use the quote-mined Ramsay thing to imply that the supernatural bits were accurate.


I mean, you've said so enough times.

Oh, wait, you've said Ramsay's accuracy on mundane matters doesn't provide evidence the supernatural bits.


So, another lie.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do intend the "Ramsay called Luke a great historian" quote as evidence for the supernatural bits of the Bible.

Oh, my mistake, you said Ramsay does not provide "proof" that Luke was accurate on the supernatural bits. A tricky and dishonest bit of equivocation, since this thread as about evidence, and we've explained to you why the Ramsay quote does not qualify as evidence, for you tore-define it so subtly.

Of course, the quote above proves that you do intend Ramsay's quote to provide evidence the the book of Luke is true. Which is why you intentionally omit the parts of Ramsay's quotes which show him specifically excluding the supernatural bits. Despite being corrected repeatedly.


DOC,you are a LIAR!

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.

ETA: Another link to Lothian's superb post.

 

[Lothian]

This is all off the cuff because I'm a little tired and I remember reading something about this somewhere but here it goes:

Evidence for supernatural facts would in many cases need supernatural evidence. Thus your asking for a miracle to prove a miracle. For example how do you prove Christ changed water into wine to people 2000 years later. It would take supernatural evidence to do that. How do you prove Christ rose from the dead. It would take Christ to supernaturally appear to you. You want a miracle to prove a miracle. The miracles of Christ can't be proved by anything but supernatural evidence. Thus it can be argued skeptics are asking for too much because they are asking for miracles when they are asking for evidence of supernatural facts.

So you agree there is no evidence that the NT writers told the truth when describing the supernatural events in the bible. Welcome aboard.

 

[DOC]

So you agree there is no evidence that the NT writers told the truth when describing the supernatural events in the bible. Welcome aboard.

No, I don't agree, because on second thought we do have miraculous evidence, we have fulfilled prophecy.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

 

[X]

No, I don't agree, because on second thought we do have miraculous evidence, we have fulfilled prophecy.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

The Bible does not prove the Bible is true, DOC.

Can you prove that the writers did not simply twist events (or make things up wholesale) to fit previously-recorded prophecies?

I agree with others, that the term should be "contrived postdictions".

You know this is circular logic and therefore invalid, DOC. Why do you bring it up again?

 

[DOC]

DOC,you are a LIAR!

Even if that was true (which it is not), it would in no way affect the truth of the true facts I present. For example the true fact that Sir W. M. Ramsay said Luke was one of the world's greatest historians.

 

[DOC]

The Bible does not prove the Bible is true, DOC.

Can you prove that the writers did not simply twist events (or make things up wholesale) to fit previously-recorded prophecies?

I agree with others, that the term should be "contrived postdictions".

You can't contrive the time period you lived in. You can't contrive being born in country where Bethlehem exists. You can't contrive how the Romans decided to put you to death. For example some prophecies seem to predict a crucifixion before that method of death was even known by the prophets.

ETA: The Jews killed by stoning, not crucifixion.

 

[X]

Even if that was true (which it is not), it would in no way affect the truth of the true facts I present. For example the true fact that Sir W. M. Ramsay said Luke was one of the world's greatest historians.

There you go again!

You intentionally leave out the parts where Ramsay explains that he excludes the supernatural bits from 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

You are lying when you omit those disclaimers, DOC.



When confronted with these caveats, you say that:

"none of the 84 highly detailed facts that Luke got right is a miracle"
and
"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."

But then, after effectively denying that you intended Ramsays's quote as "Evidence that the New Testament Writers told the Truth", you come out and say:
"And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts."

It is plainly obvious that you do indeed intend Ramsay's quote as evidence of the truth of the New Testament, despite your protestations to the contrary (which, it now seems, were also lies).

For this reason, you intentionally quote-mine what Ramsay said, in order to give the impression that he did not exclude the supernatural parts.


DOC, nobody here cares about the historical locations and other minor details of the author you insist on calling "Luke". They are irrelevant to the discussion. The reason why is explained below:

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.​

In using Ramsay's quote to try and provide evidence for the New Testament, you are using it to try and provide evidence that the stories are true, not the minor and myriad details of daily life.
As such, either you intend it as evidence supporting the supernatural bits (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc), or you don't (in which case it is a red herring and irrelevant to this thread).

You made posts implying both possibilities.
Obviously, to use you beloved "law of non-contradiction
", one of your claimed positions therefore is a lie.

As is your repeated quote-mine of Ramsay, after being repeatedly shown that you are misquoting him to change his meaning.


Stop lying, DOC. You're not very good at it.

 

[Lothian]

Even if that was true (which it is not), it would in no way affect the truth of the true facts I present. For example the true fact that Sir W. M. Ramsay said Luke was one of the world's greatest historians.

and it is true that he said there is no historical evidence or reasoning for the supernatural parts of the bible.

 

[joobz]

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

which is exactly what Ramsay said he didn't mean. In otherwords,
1.) Geisler is a stupid liar.
2.) Your use of Ramsay's quote is a lie
3.) You lied when you said you were not implying that the quote would extend to supernatural (religious aspects) of the bible.

 

[X]

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction and 82 other highly detailed facts it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

hiliting mine.


I knew I'd seen this before, it just took me a while to dig up my previous reply...

You are correct. It is indeed a bias against the supernatural that prevents us from accepting supernatural claims.

The reason for this bias is simple: To date, no supernatural claim has ever been shown to have any substance beyond ignorance of the underlying causes.
Not one.

Why, then, should we accept claims of things that have never been demonstrated, never been shown as realistic?

You do, because you have FAITH.

You have FAITH that these things are real. Your so-called "evidence" makes sense to you because you have faith in these supernatural events being true.

Underlying all your claims has been this faith.

ANd you know whay?

I have no problem with you having faith.

If you wish to claim that you have faith in Jesus' resurrection, in Jesus being the son of God, in the New Testament gospels being authored by eyewitnesses who later martyred themselves, that's fine.

You are free to have faith. I can't touch it. And I won't try to stop you from having it.

But if you are going to claim to have evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth, it had better be able to stand up to critical scrutiny.

So far, not a single piece of "evidence" you have trotted out has even fit the proper definition of evidence, let alone pass a rudimentary application of rational thought.

If you want to claim that you take the New Testament as truth based on faith, do it. No one will attack you for it. They might call into question your reasons for your faith (to which you really don't need to respond, if you don't want), but they will not attack you for admitting that your belief is faith-based.

But this thread promised "evidence".

Either bring it up, or admit you have no evidence that does not relay on a pre-existing faith in the supernatural.

And if you insist on continuing to use the stuff brought up so far in this thread, you will receive only continued disrespect, mockery, and belittlement.
Why?
Because all the primary and supporting evidence you have brought forward to date has not stood up to critical scrutiny.
The reasons why the arguments have failed has been explained to you in patient detail.

DOC, it's time to stop pretending that American Presidents, supposed (and unproven) martyrs, opinions about what is embarrassing, and landmarks constitute evidence that Jesus' resurrection and miracles really happened as documented in the New Testament.


Because other works can also make these claims, as has been pointed out, forcing you into desperate "special pleading" mode where you bring out more irrelevant, illogical nonsense that gets torn apart and spit back at you. And then you get all huffy and "persecuted".

I repeat:
Either bring forward some real evidence (or sound arguments for why the stuff you've brought forward so far should be considered as such), or admit it is a matter of faith to you and that you have no solid evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well it certainly doesn't hurt . . .

Wrong. It hurts your case immensely. It's become the longest running joke on the forum, and every time you mention it, the laughter gets a little louder.

You alone are unable to hear it.

. . . to have well respected archaeologist

Only by you DOC. If your entire case is going to be an appeal to one person's authority, you'd be better off picking someone that the other side also respects.

. . . and former skeptic Sir W. M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging and studying in biblical lands

Well, there's his mistake. He should have tried digging somewhere in the real world, instead of some weird, made-up place that he read about in a fairytale.

What a maroon he turned out to be.

. . . to call the author of the Luke and Acts one of the world's greatest historians.

Which is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Where do I search. either online or IRL, for the complete set of Luke's history books. I want to read up on Ancient Egypt. Sumer and Cathay. Does he give these vitally important cultures a decent coverage?

And as Geisler points out if Luke is so detailed and proven correct about minor things like water depth and wind direction . . .

The water depth at the south sill of the Pedro Miguel Locks on the Panama Canal is 41.2 ft (12.56 m). The current wind in Kilmore, Victoria is 22 km/h gusting to 33 km/h @ 347° magnetic. There is a large blue hippopotomus in my kitchen, making lasagne.

. . . and 82 other highly detailed facts.

That's just drivel. Not even worth my time to make up another joke.

. . . it is only a supernatural bias that keeps us from believing the 35 miracles that Luke reports on (including miracles of Paul and other apostles) in the that same matter of fact nonembellished style he reports about the 84 facts.

It might be supernatural bias that's preventing you from seeing the nonsense you're peddling for what it is, but it's good old common sense doing it for the rest of us.

So who do you think has a problem here?

Hint: It's you.

Also Ramsay discovered important information about the Luke census, Quirinius, and other facts.

So have I. Discovered it right here in fact, although sadly not what you wanted me to learn and even sadder (for you), not from any of the absolute bilge that you've flooded the thread with.

Several websites also say the former skeptic Ramsay became a Christian after his 15 year study.

So what? My website says I'm Amenhotep IV. Wanna bet on whether it's true?

 

[Akhenaten]

This is all off the cuff because I'm a little tired and I remember reading something about this somewhere but here it goes:

Do you have the faintest whiff of some clue as to indications of what might constitute a reliable source?

Hint: Not your memory.

Evidence for supernatural facts would in many cases need supernatural evidence.

my bolding

Lolwut? Do you have any idea what an oxymoron is? I'll help you out with another one. 'Biblical inerrancy'

See how it works? You juxtapose two opposites as though they were a meaningful phrase. Quite humorous in their senseless whimsy, but pretty pointless in a debate. Won't stop you though, will it?

Thus your asking for a miracle to prove a miracle.

It's not true that anyone has asked for a miracle, and it's misspelled, but it would probably be a reasonable request, if there was such a thing as miracles.

Hint. There isn't.

For example how do you prove Christ changed water into wine to people 2000 years later. It would take supernatural evidence to do that.

Off you go then.

How do you prove Christ rose from the dead.

You don't. He didn't.

It would take Christ to supernaturally appear to you.

No. That simply isn't true.

I know 5 billion times more about my namesake than you do about your rabbi. How much of that knowledge do you think I acquired by supernatural means?

Hint: If you want a story to last, write it in stone.

By the way, have you looked up 'papyrus', the non-existant paper of the ancient world, yet?

You want a miracle to prove a miracle. The miracles of Christ can't be proved by anything but supernatural evidence. Thus it can be argued skeptics are asking for too much because they are asking for miracles when they are asking for evidence of supernatural facts.

That's starting to sound rabid, DOC. Settle.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, I don't agree, because on second thought we do have miraculous evidence, we have fulfilled prophecy.

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

You can't help yourself, can you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Even if that was true (which it is not), it would in no way affect the truth of the true facts I present. For example the true fact that Sir W. M. Ramsay said Luke was one of the world's greatest historians.

Gibberish, debunked 47 trillion times in this very thread.

Particularly in my own 78 quadrillion posts, two of which have won me awards, which are out there for all to see and to speak for themselves. Does it give you a warm fuzzy glow to have contributed to my success?

Keep 'em coming. won't you?