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

[Waterman]

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.

Yes but that was only part of the statement as has been pointed out by other.

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 bolded the above. This is where you start to go wrong with the Ramsey quote. While many here DO have a supernatural bias the main issue that I have with you using this quote is that it is Ramsey's own caveats, that you blatantly omit, that render his quote irrelevant in the support of the supernatural bits.

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

Which, if I remember correctly, information was posted by others that some of his discoveries in regard to the census were later determined to be in error.

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

Interesting, but irrelevant to the point of this discussion. It is clear form the full quotes that Ramsey is, at best, neutral about the accuracy of the book of Luke when it comes to the supernatural events. At worst, we could infer that Ramsey found insufficient corroborating evidence for those events and was unable validate them as factual.

In addition if am recalling correctly it is considered that the Luke that is considered by some to be the author of the book of Luke did not meet Jesus but was a traveling companion of Paul. Therefore his accounts re: regarding anything done by/to Jesus was at best second hand information (hearsay), lore or perhaps parable with Jesus as the teacher figure.

 

[Waterman]

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

Wait a minute there... If I recall correctly according to one of the Gospels did Jeses know of the prophecy and intentionlly do some of the things in the Prophesy to make sure he fullfilled it.

Isn't that like cheating?

Imagine of people took a modern day prophet predicted in the national press that the man that appears on January 20th at National Airport in a Red Hat and a Blue Sport Coat with a Pink carnation would be the one that would be granted a great leadership position in government and much power. Would it have meant that it was supposed to be me If I went out got the red hat, blue sport coat and pink carnation and drove to the airport? How many others would I see there dressed the same.

 

[Waterman]

Actually he said faith, intuition, and the inner parts of your being. Others scholars like Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Ralph Muncaster think the known historical and logical evidence is important to their belief in the supernatural aspects of the bible.

Exactly! Ramsey does appear to say that the supernatuaral bits have to be relied on by "faith, intuition, and the inner parts of your being" however that is exactly what excludes this as evidence from a scientific point of view.

I have read what I could of the Geisler 'reasons' that were posted on line and it boiled down to a collection of ill founded opinions not evidence.

 

[amb]

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

If Ramsey is a credible source, then I'm the second cousin of pope Ratzinger and a third cousin to Mussolini himself. I'm also the coming antichrist.

 

[paximperium]

If Ramsey is a credible source, then I'm the second cousin of pope Ratzinger and a third cousin to Mussolini himself. I'm also the coming antichrist.

I wouldn't be so harsh to Sir William Ramsay. He lived in an error prior to modern archeology and was indoctrinated by the religious norm of the time. Despite that he was intellectually honest enough to clearly state that the supernatural claims of Luke could only be believed by faith.

 

[amb]

But he did state that Luke was the greatest historian who ever lived. How could a sensible person come to such a conclusions?

 

[DOC]

Wait a minute there... If I recall correctly according to one of the Gospels did Jeses know of the prophecy and intentionlly do some of the things in the Prophesy to make sure he fullfilled it.

Isn't that like cheating?

Well I don't know what verse your talking about but Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem (or at the very least he was born in Palestine) and he couldn't self fulfill his own prophecy of surviving his death (crucifixion by the Romans -- Tacitus talks of Jesus being given the supreme punishment), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being whipped "by his stripes we are healed" (he was likely whipped by the Romans before his crucifixion.)

And read Isaiah Chapter 53 and you can make your own decision if you think that is talking about Jesus. In the "Middle Ages" a Jewish rabbi came up with the theory it was talking about the Jewish nation. But the rabbis in the Old Testament thought it referred to the Messiah, and that's what should matter.

 

[Lothian]

But he did state that Luke was the greatest historian who ever lived. How could a sensible person come to such a conclusions?

I have never seen Ramsay say that. Have you a direct link?

Well I don't know what verse your talking about but Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem

Any evidence that the bible authors told the truth when they claim he was born in Bethlehem?

 

[DOC]

Any evidence that the bible authors told the truth when they claim he was born in Bethlehem?

Well actually Ramsay has a chapter on that in his book -- The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament -- I haven't had time to read it but someone ought to download it and bring it in and let's see what Ramsay says about Bethlehem. If I ever get the time I'm going to have to read that book. I've been too busy with Geisler's book and Ralph Muncaster's book.

 

[joobz]

I've been too busy with Geisler's book and Ralph Muncaster's book.

that's like saying you've been too busy with 'Go, dog, go'.

DOC, do you like my hat?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well I don't know what verse your talking about but . . .

But you're going to argue about it anyway. At least you're consistent.

Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David),

Of course he could. How do you know he was really Jewish. Got any evidence?

and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem (or at the very least he was born in Palestine)

How do you where know he was born? He might have been born in Hawaii, or Kenya even.

and he couldn't self fulfill his own prophecy of surviving his death.

Nor can anyone. That bit's just made up out of whole cloth.

-- Tacitus talks of Jesus being given the supreme punishment),

The Comfy Chair? I thought you said he was crucificted.

and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being whipped "by his stripes we are healed" (he was likely whipped by the Romans before his crucifixion.)

Oh yeah? Paint graffiti all over the Temple of Jupiter and see what happens. Self-inflicted if you ask me.

And read Isaiah Chapter 53 and you can make your own decision if you think that is talking about Jesus.

No.

In the "Middle Ages" a Jewish rabbi came up with the theory it was talking about the Jewish nation. But the rabbis in the Old Testament thought it referred to the Messiah, and that's what should matter.

What are you talking about? Do you forget the questions as you get toward the end of your answers?

Maybe you should make them shorter.

 

[Lothian]

Well actually Ramsay has a chapter on that in his book -- The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament -- I haven't had time to read it but someone ought to download it and bring it in and let's see what Ramsay says about Bethlehem. If I ever get the time I'm going to have to read that book. I've been too busy with Geisler's book and Ralph Muncaster's book.

There is not a chapter on the trustworthiness of the 'Bethlehem' birth in "The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament" I would have thought someone who has quoted the book over 70 times would be familiar with its contents.

I suspect you are getting mixed up with Ramsay's seperate book "Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?" That book doesn't really help. It mainly concentrates on associated events in the story and whether there could have been a census and a star in 6BCE. Of course the existence of a census and star simply would mean there was a census and a star. It does not mean that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. We know Ramsey has said there is no evidence that Mary was Jesus's mother. Similarly there is no proof that if there was a census it required Jesus's father, who ever he was to go to Bethlehem.

As Ramsay says in the on page 112 of Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?

Obviously, the truth of the story in Luke i., ii., can never be demonstrated. There will always remain a large step to be taken on faith. A marvellous event is described in it. They only will accept it who, for other reasons, have come to the conclusion that there is no adequate and rational explanation of the coming of Christianity into the world, except through the direct and " miraculous " intervention of Divine power.

So yet again, Ramsay concluded there is no evidence that the NT writers told the truth and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem,

 

[Akhenaten]

Well actually Ramsay has a chapter on that in his book -- The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament --

'Recent Discoveries' in a book written by a bloke who died over 60 years ago?

I wonder why nobody believes you, DOC.


No I don't

I haven't had time to read it

Is that how you keep coming up with non-references, misquotes and false attributions? You're at least supposed to read your own sources, you know.

but someone ought to download it and bring it in and let's see what Ramsay says about Bethlehem.

I'll just add 'downloading' to the list of things you don't understand, will I?

If I ever get the time I'm going to have to read that book. I've been too busy with Geisler's book and Ralph Muncaster's book.

Piano's got a wobbly leg, has it?

 

[Mojo]

I would have thought someone who has quoted the book over 70 times would be familiar with its contents.

Another triumph of hope over experience.

 

[X]

Well I don't know what verse your talking about but Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem (or at the very least he was born in Palestine) and he couldn't self fulfill his own prophecy of surviving his death (crucifixion by the Romans -- Tacitus talks of Jesus being given the supreme punishment), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being whipped "by his stripes we are healed" (he was likely whipped by the Romans before his crucifixion.)

And read Isaiah Chapter 53 and you can make your own decision if you think that is talking about Jesus. In the "Middle Ages" a Jewish rabbi came up with the theory it was talking about the Jewish nation. But the rabbis in the Old Testament thought it referred to the Messiah, and that's what should matter.

Of course, it is completely impossible that the authors of the gospels (whoever they are) could have fudged the details or even invented whole new ones in order to align Jesus' life with the prophecies...


DOC, which is more likely:

Fulfilled prophecy and miracles, neither of which have actually been confirmed to have ever occurred,
OR
That someone lied, lying being a common occurrence in humans. You yourself have lied in this very thread.

 

[joobz]

That someone lied, lying being a common occurrence in humans. You yourself have lied in this very thread.

Funny thing about lying is that the liar often even convinces his/herself of the truth of the lie.

 

[Paulhoff]

Funny thing about lying is that the liar often even convinces his/herself of the truth of the lie.

If you lie for Jesus and a so-called god, it is OK.

Paul

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well actually Ramsay has a chapter on that in his book -- The Bearing of the Recent Discoveries on the trustworthiness of the New Testament -- I haven't had time to read it but someone ought to download it and bring it in and let's see what Ramsay says about Bethlehem. If I ever get the time I'm going to have to read that book. I've been too busy with Geisler's book and Ralph Muncaster's book.

[highlighting mine]

You've "been too busy"? This thread is three years old this month. How long does it take you to read two books?

And even if you are studying them closely, you can't read something else in between?

 

[Lucian]

Well I don't know what verse your talking about but Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem (or at the very least he was born in Palestine) and he couldn't self fulfill his own prophecy of surviving his death (crucifixion by the Romans -- Tacitus talks of Jesus being given the supreme punishment), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being whipped "by his stripes we are healed" (he was likely whipped by the Romans before his crucifixion.)

And read Isaiah Chapter 53 and you can make your own decision if you think that is talking about Jesus. In the "Middle Ages" a Jewish rabbi came up with the theory it was talking about the Jewish nation. But the rabbis in the Old Testament thought it referred to the Messiah, and that's what should matter.

Why is "Middle Ages" in quotation marks? I need to know if I should change my CV to say "medievalist" rather than medievalist.

 

[Waterman]

Well I don't know what verse your talking about but Jesus couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of the messiah being Jewish (House of David), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being born in Bethlehem (or at the very least he was born in Palestine) and he couldn't self fulfill his own prophecy of surviving his death (crucifixion by the Romans -- Tacitus talks of Jesus being given the supreme punishment), and he couldn't self fulfill the prophecy of being whipped "by his stripes we are healed" (he was likely whipped by the Romans before his crucifixion.)

And read Isaiah Chapter 53 and you can make your own decision if you think that is talking about Jesus. In the "Middle Ages" a Jewish rabbi came up with the theory it was talking about the Jewish nation. But the rabbis in the Old Testament thought it referred to the Messiah, and that's what should matter.

You side stepped my comment / question. The prophecy had a number of point in it. You address the ones that you claim Jesus tracked to that were beyond his control. My statements was in regard to those that were in his control and that he intentionally decided to attempt to fulfill. From what I have seen of what you have posted of the prophecy I have to admit that many of them seemed rather mundane and non-specific.