Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
I'm going to make the assumption that maybe DOC really doesn't know why his hypothetical is stupid and dishonest
let's begin:
both people are false as there is no evidence that levitation is possible. (just like here, there is no evidence that resurrections are possible).
Let's change your hypothetical to see why this is:
If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.
And person A claimed he ate a ham sandwich last night.
And person B claimed he ate a ham sandwich two weeks ago .
And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.
TEll, me DOC, which person is telling the truth about eating a ham sandwich?
let's begin:
There is no reason to assume person B is ignorant or dishonest. Further, there is no reason to assume that person A, who someone calls a great historian, wouldn't be dishonest about other topics.
Both make magical claims? I'd stop right here and say,
both people are false as there is no evidence that levitation is possible. (just like here, there is no evidence that resurrections are possible).
Here, I'm being forced at gun point to buy into the premise that levitation is real. Funny, that. I must be forcibly told that levitation is real in order for me to state which person I believe more about the levitation story. This is classic circular reasoning. And exposes the critical error of the argument. The appeal to authority DOESN'T in any way increase the likelihood of someone speaking truthfully on a topic.
I would honestly say that I do not have enough information to make the judgement. It is possible that neither are telling the truth or both are telling the truth, or only one. We simply do not know.
Let's change your hypothetical to see why this is:
If you knew person A was called one of the world's greatest historians by a famous academic. And person B was just a random person off the street.
And person A claimed he ate a ham sandwich last night.
And person B claimed he ate a ham sandwich two weeks ago .
And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right.
TEll, me DOC, which person is telling the truth about eating a ham sandwich?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Given that both of these people are claiming something that goes against the known laws of physics, I would say both of them are nutbars.*
Now, if someone could provide evidence beyond hearsay that someone levitated...
* - And call the police to let them know there is another nutbar running around threatening to kill people over something stupid.
Last edited:
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Well yeah, that's why I thought it was a bit of a pointless question for DOC to ask. Since Ramsay was digging for so-called biblical sites, it's a fair bet that he believed in their existence before he started in with the shovel.
Not overly scientific, I would say. Not very good at producing evidence either.
Now there's a familiar theme.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
No matter. He was still an apologist accepting the gospels as truth in history.
Lothian
should be banned
Actually. he was an apologist who accepted that the locations and mundane events were fairly a fairly accurate description of the time, however he said there is no evidence for the supernatural events in the story and the only way you can believe them is through faith.
For some strange reason Doc seems to ignore this last bit which Ramsay repeats throughout his writings. It is strange that he does ignore it as he has been told many many times and has been given the direct quotes (I don't think Doc has ever read a book by Ramsay himself). It is almost as if he wants people to believe Ramsay found evidence that the NT writers told the truth about the essential parts of the Jesus myth, when Ramsay himself clearly said, as an expert in the field, that there was no evidence to be found.
Well let me ask Doc this hypothetical question and see if he has the courage to answer it truthfully. If you knew person A was a famous academic. And person B was just a random poster from this thread.
And person A (Sir William Ramsay) claimed there is no historical evidence for the miracles in the bible
And person B (me) claimed there is no historical evidence for the miracles in the bible.
Then you were asked which person A or B would choose as your answer as being the one who was right. Who would you choose A or B or would you try to deceive people suggest that Person A claimed there is historical evidence for the miracles in the bible?
Last edited:
The origin of the Big Bang can't be explained by the laws of physics (at least according to the World Book Encyclopedia). So are all people who believe in the Big Bang nutbars.
So not one skeptic has been willing to give me a simple answer to my hypothetical question and answer Person A or Person B. And I ask this question of all skeptics not just joobz or Hokulele. One has to wonder why?
The origin of the Big Bang can't be explained by the laws of physics (at least according to the World Book Encyclopedia). So are all people who believe in the Big Bang nutbars.
So not one skeptic has been willing to give me a simple answer to my hypothetical question and answer Person A or Person B. And I ask this question of all skeptics not just joobz or Hokulele. One has to wonder why? Here is the question again:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
Well but then DOC comes along with a gun and says either the Martian of the Jovian is correct. Pick one or else.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Just because you don't like the answer provided does not mean it's an invalid answer.
Some of us are aware that the world is much more complex than the box you'd like to fit it in where your religion would somehow suddenly make sense. Just because you have an overly simplified view of the world ("Goddidit") doesn't mean the rest of us do.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
The B/Bs origin has been explained as a quantum fluctuation. A sliver of energy that has always existed that suddenly expanded into everything we see around us today. This expansion may have happened many times before in time, but perhaps with a little too much gravity which quickly [a few billion years] collapsed into itself, to expand again until the mix of gravity and other laws of physics created this universe which seems to go on expanding for ever according to such notebles as Hubble.
Nowhere is a god neccecery.
Actualy, when you think about it, the ernomous times and size of this almost infinite universe leaves no room at all for any idea of a god, let alone a Jeesus.
What is your source that he said they were a fairly accurate description of the time? And several websites say he was not a believer "before" his research in biblical lands.
And here is what he actually said about the birth of Christ in his book:
This book is no longer under copyright protection.
The Bearing Of Recent Discovery On The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament pg 236-238:
"The final criticism, however, remains. The truth of the
historical surroundings in which Luke's narrative places
the birth of Jesus does not prove that the supreme facts,
which give human and divine value to the birth, are true-
It may be in fact it must be admitted as true that " the
<snip>
first enrolment " really took place, that Quirinius was
governing Syria during at least the first half of the year,
and that the general order was issued in Syria for all to
return to their own homes in preparation for the enrolment.
Yet this does not prove that Mary was the mother of Christ,
as Luke describes Him, and as John and Paul saw Him and
believed in Him.
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. It is known through the absolute
insight into the heart of human life and divine nature. It
comes to, or is granted to, or is forced upon, a man as the
completion of his experience and the crown of his life and
the remaking of his nature. It proves itself to the soul of
man. When he sees it, he knows that it is the one truth
the one ultimate truth in a world of half-truths, a world
of preparation, where he is being moulded, and fashioned,
and hammered into a condition in which he can receive the
truth.
This knowledge cannot be proved by mere verbal argu
ment. It is not in word, but in power. It does not
spring from any more fundamental principle. It is the
fountain from which all other so-called principles flow. It
is the guarantee of all other truth. There is nothing true
without God ; and there is nothing true except the Divine
in the infinite variety of His manifestation.
No man can make historical investigation and historical
proof take the place of faith ; and it is not the purpose of
these lectures to put the one for the other. The Christian
religion is a matter of living, not of mere intellectual know-
Gospel of Luke. 237
ledge ; and " the just shall live by faith ". Yet it is not
without its value to have the truth of the concomitant cir
cumstances demonstrated. One must remember that
Christianity did not originate in a lie, and that we can
and ought to demonstrate this, as well as to believe it. The
account which it gives of its own origin is susceptible of
being tested on the principles of historical study, and
through the progress of discovery the truth of that account
can be and has been in great part proved. There is, how
ever, more to do. The evidence is there, if we look for it
CHAPTER XIX
LUKE'S ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST CENSUS
WHAT does Luke say about the census? That had never
been determined. Mutually inconsistent and thoroughly
unjustifiable (if one may venture to use such an adjective
regarding the opinions of great theological critics) 1 inter
pretations of his brief statement on the subject were advo
cated ; and the simple, natural, and obvious translation was
not, so far as I am aware, ever considered seriously.
The critical question is this : what is the meaning of
" first " ? Why is this census called the first? Everything
else depends on the answer to this question.
On the principles laid down in " St. Paul the Traveller,"
pp. 27 f., there could not be for me any doubt. Luke says
this was " the first," in order to distinguish it from later
occasions on which the census was taken. He knew of
several such occasions of census-takings, and one of these
he actually mentions as "the census," 2 viz. the one which
was made in A.D. 6 when Judea was organized as a pro
vince of the Empire. Now if Luke describes a census as
the first, we are led on inevitably to the supposition of a
series of census-takings, and something in the way of a
regular census-system. See Note on p. 254..."
http://www.archive.org/stream/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft/bearingofrecentd00ramsuoft_djvu.txt
Bolding added
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
From your post, Doc:
ETA: Why do you misrepresent your hero so? Especially after finding a passage where he explicitly states that his lecture is in no way meant to do what you're struggling to make it do?
my bolding
ETA: Why do you misrepresent your hero so? Especially after finding a passage where he explicitly states that his lecture is in no way meant to do what you're struggling to make it do?
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
The reason why is that we wouldn't believe either testimony without further proof. You have inserted into the scenario "And then someone said to you I will kill you if you don't answer this question correctly and then that person said it was indeed found that one of the people above was right". The bolded part makes people wary. We know what you are like. If we choose A you would assume from that that we should believe Ramsay and accept that the Luke told the truth. However a) Ramsay never said that Luke told the truth with regard the supernatural and b) it has not been found that Luke is right. As I see it the answer to the question therefore has no relevance to the thread.
If I had to make the choice. My honest answer is that I would initially be sceptical about either. I would want to review the evidence that one of the two was right.
I would expect not to be convinced by either and would end up being killed.
If I was satisfied from the evidence that there had been a levitation and had to choose, I would look for clues in the evidence that gave a hint as to the correct option. If there were none I would not consider a historian anymore reliable than a funeral director or a street cleaner. I guess I would go for New York. Florida is hotter and the person A is more likely to have been suffering from heat stroke.
- Status