• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
What is your source that he said they were a fairly accurate description of the time?
Click to expand...
How about the begining of the quote you gave


The Bearing Of Recent Discovery On The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament pg 236-238:


".. 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."

What he is saying is that the locations in the story are true but the supernatual bits (birth of jesus, son of God) are not proven by the fact that there was a place called Bethlehem.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
And here is what he actually said about the birth of Christ in his book:
Click to expand...
Yes, let's read along together:
"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
Click to expand...

I think you must have skipped that bit, somehow, so I've highlighted it for you.
 
DOC said:
Actually I didn't skip it. I'm the only one who listed it in context with a URL.
Click to expand...
So tell us in your own words what Ramsay is saying about evidence in the quoted passage? I will give you a clue by highlighting the main bits.

"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 that " the first enrolment " really took place. Yet this does not prove that Mary was the mother of Christ.

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 proves itself to the soul of man.

This knowledge cannot be proved by mere verbal argument.

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. "
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
From your post, Doc:

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?
Click to expand...

My posting of his text is complete and in context unlike yours. The complete text is there for people to read and they can make up their own minds as to whether or not it is relevant. Are you saying the info about the census in the passage is not relevant to whether Luke was telling the truth about the census that he reported occurred close to the birth of Christ?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
My posting of his text is complete and in context unlike yours. The complete text is there for people to read and they can make up their own minds as to whether or not it is relevant. Are you saying the info about the census in the passage is not relevant to whether Luke was telling the truth about the census that he reported occurred close to the birth of Christ?
Click to expand...
He said "It may be in fact it must be admitted as true that " the 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. "

He argues that there may have been a census as described but this only means that the census bits might be correct. "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. "

So it means he may have been right about the census but no evidence for the Son of God born to Virgin.
 
DOC said:
Yes, and the "entire" text I listed speaks for itself. How people interpret the "entire" text in context is up to them.
Click to expand...
How do you interpret from the text what Ramsay says about the evidence for the supreme and essential parts of the story?

And a simpler question. What do you interpret from the text about the evidence for the identity of the mother of Jesus?

Remember that we are looking for evidence that the NT writers told the truth. You brought up Ramsay. We need to know what do you think he said with regards to the evidence.
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would disagree:

Sir W.M. Ramsay quote from the passage I brought in:

Yet it is not without its value to have the truth of the concomitant
circumstances 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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5525170#post5525170
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I would disagree:

Sir W.M. Ramsay quote from the passage I brought in:

Yet it is not without its value to have the truth of the concomitant
circumstances 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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5525170#post5525170
Click to expand...
The start of your paragraph puts the reaminder in context "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 knowledge ; and " the just shall live by faith ".


He is saying the that there is historical evidence for the concomitant circumstances (the locations, some people etc) however for the essential parts there is no historical evidence. A believer needs to take an extra step and the evidence for the supreme parts of the story can be found through faith. Like a Muslim knows the truth of the supernatural parts of the Koran through faith a Christian knows the truth of the Bible through faith.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well let me ask you this hypothetical question and see if you have the courage to answer it truthfully. 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 saw someone levitate in 2005 in Florida

And person B claimed he saw someone levitate in 2008 in New York.

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.

Then you were asked, "which person A or B would choose as the one who was right"?. Who would you choose A or B?
Click to expand...


Most probably, both A, B and C are mistaken as we don't know of any means for a man to levitate, while we know of several trick that cheaters can employ to pretend to (some Indian holy men do it).
There's certainly no reason to believe either of them are right.

You artificially introduce a cheat by pretending one of them are (as you are trying to do by introducing C), glossing over the difficult part.
It's like asking what am I more likely to have in my basement? A miniature dragon or an unicorn?

In fact, if we decide that one of them is correct, it is just as likely that they, actually, both truly saw somebody levitate.
If levitation was actually possible, it would be through some unknown physical law and these laws would be quite constant on Earth making it unlikely to be a one time event.


If I had to decide on pain of death, I might as well decide randomly as there is nothing to automatically make a Historian a better eye-witnesses. There job is to collect historical data and accounts.
In fact, as far as I know, person B could be a journalist or a cop*, somebody that actually as some training in being a eye-witness.
Furthermore, the fact that person A volunteer this information is a bit suspicious, as it is completely irrelevant and sounds like an appeal to authority. A is more likely to have ulterior motives than B, I guess.


* Or James Randi, does he not amazingly live in Florida?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Joobz wouldn't answer person A or person B to my hypothetical question. I'll ask it of you.
Click to expand...


I can't.
There isn't enough information.

Before you go off claiming that I am incapable of answering a simple question, or that I'm dodging it, read carefully...

This is a skeptics website, DOC.

We tend to be wary of logical fallacies.

As has been pointed out, argument from authority (i.e. your repeated claims that Luke is somehow more trustworthy because Ramsay said so) is a fallacy.

Just because person A was described as trustworthy by some other person does not mean they are telling the truth.

Especially when claiming something like levitation, which has never been proven possible.

Either person A or B could be telling the truth. Or both could be lying. And the "authority" could be lying. Or could be being quote-mined (we know how fond you are of quote-mines).

Let me ask you a question, DOC:

Person A, whom you have heard described as a trustworthy source, claims he saw a brown dog last Tuesday.

Person B, some random person off the street, claims he saw a brown dog on Friday.

Who is telling the truth?

Oh, and for some idiotic reason, a person is holding a gun to your head forcing you to answer correctly.​

This is the same question you are asking us, DOC. Only without the unproven claim of levitation.

Now let's review the possible answers:

1) Person A is telling the truth.
2) Person B is telling the truth.
3) Both are lying.
4) Both are mistaken, the dog was black.
5) Both are telling the truth.​

Before you choose, DOC, remember: Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy.
 
DOC said:
Yes, and the "entire" text I listed speaks for itself.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately the entire text doesn't say what you claim it says. To make it support you you have to ignore parts of it. The fact that you have posted the parts that don't support you does not justify your ignoring them.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
The "origin of the big bang" is an illthought statement. You might as well ask about the origin of the north pole.

DOC said:
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:
Click to expand...
I did answer it. One has to wonder why you refuse to accept the answers....
Here is my answer again.
joobz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now DOC, do you have the courage to answer my hypothetical?
joobz said:
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?
Click to expand...

Come on, DOC, which person ate a ham sandwhich? One has to wonder why you refuse to answer this question....
 
Last edited:
DOC,

Me, Hokulele, worm, akhenaten, bobthedonkey, Simon39759 and X
have all answered your hypothetical and have given the almost identical answer.

What does that prove, DOC?

Right now,you can admit that you don't like our answers, but you most certainly can't claim we didn't answer you.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well let me ask you this hypothetical question and see if you have the courage to answer it truthfully. 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 saw someone levitate in 2005 in Florida

And person B claimed he saw someone levitate in 2008 in New York.


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.

Then you were asked, "which person A or B would choose as the one who was right"?. Who would you choose A or B?
Click to expand...

Sod it, I'll bite. But first I'm going to add some bones to the strawman.

Person B is still random. Person A has been refered to (by one academic that we know of) as one of the world's greatest historians, but specifically not in matters regarding levitation. His speciality is, let's say, landmarks of 1st century Palestine.

Person C is the rabid loony with a gun to your head. He's also the one giving you the false dichotomy that one of these people has to be right.

If for whatever reason I found myself in this rediculous situation, I would flip a coin. Both A & B are as likely to be right in the deranged imagination of person C, so the best you can do is leave it to chance.

ETA: Sorry if I spoiled the count there, joobz
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well let me ask you this hypothetical question and see if you have the courage to answer it truthfully. 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 saw someone levitate in 2005 in Florida

And person B claimed he saw someone levitate in 2008 in New York.


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.


Then you were asked, "which person A or B would choose as the one who was right"?. Who would you choose A or B?
Click to expand...

I'll give it a crack.

Person A is a renowned magician
Person B is a random internet nerd

Person A claims that there is no god and all religion is bunk
Person B claims that there is no god and all religion is bunk

Person C states that both of them are correct and offers you a piece of gum.

Do you:
A. Thank the atheists for playing
B. Hold a gun to person D's head and say you will kill them if they don't believe in your god?

Which do you choose, A or B?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom