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

[Mojo]

You seem to have decided that it is an established fact that Luke was a great historian.

He thinks that if he repeats it often enough it will become true.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm saying that THE NEW TESTAMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS TRUE.

Got that yet? "Because it says so" is not evidence.

All the events that take place in Moby-Dick were written about by Herman Melville. By your reasoning that is evidence that they are true.

[DOC]

But that's not the same as when we are talking about the evidence of Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence).

[/DOC]


I'll bet you 9 internets.

 

[Lothian]

Doc,

You tell us that two religions can not both be true. Therefore the truth of another religion is very relevant to this thread as it will prove to you that the NT authors were not telling the truth. To provide that evidence for other beliefs I need to know what you consider evidence. You appear to have made the following arguments but I am uncertain as to whether you consider it evidence or, what Latin scholars like yourself like to call, obiter dicta.


Please confirm or deny the following. A simple Yes or No will do.

• Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?
  
• Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?
  
• Do you accept that, 1000s of years after people started writing, a tale has been passed by oral tradition, is evidence that the story is true?
  
• Do you accept the fact that a story is included in a re-titled is compendium of stories evidence that the story is true?

Others are free to add to the list.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred.

Who has called Luke one of the world's greatest historians, and on which grounds?

That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

It is not. Ask any real historian. The writings of Luke are legends. Legends often contain various kinds of historical information, and as such they are interesting because they do provide us with background information of areas of which we otherwise have very limited first-hand information.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

And so what? Prosecution of political and religious (the same thing in that era) enemies was standard procedure in those times.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

We don't know if that is true, but even then, what does it prove, except that they were firm believers? We live in rather milder times now, but you keep coming here and get your backside flogged verbally. Does that prove anything?

Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely.

It does sound like such an environment, and we know it was. Speak against the powers to be, on whatever subject, and your life was at stake. It was like that through most of history, still is in some places.

So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred

Correction: We have evidence, from multiple sources, that disagreeing with the people in power, on any mater, was bad for your health. So what?

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet.

Ehr no, but it exists now, and you still can't use it to prove the bible.

These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would.

Actually, no. Even today, reporters are not necessarily very trustworthy, but in the early Christian era, and for many centuries on, the tradition for objectivity that we do have now to some degree did not exist at all.

The fact that their writings became part of a book (the Bible) officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the historicity of those writings (especially regarding Luke).

That would be correct if you could muster evidence that Luke's writings were included into the bible unchanged and complete. You can't. You can't even prove they were written by Luke or that Luke existed.
And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

No it is not, and even if it should be true, their being prosecuted by those in power does not prove their preachings were true. Seriously, you don't wanna use this argument, because it can, with much more evidence, be used to support lots of things you would not dream of endorsing.

ETA: Just as an example, we have indisputable historical evidence that Communists were fiercely prosecuted in the USA during the Mc Carty period and although flogging and crucifiction had become ourdated, they were deprived of jobs, even jailed. However, I suspect you would not take this as evidence that Communism is the Truth?

Hans

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in, that you can't use the New Testament as evidence that the New Testament is true?

But you forget that that argument doesn't count any more because when the New Testament writers wrote the New Testament they didn't call it the New Testament or know that it would be called the New Testament so it's not really the New Testament so verses from the New Testament are not really from the New Testament and can be used as evidence that the New Testament (which, although now called the New Testament, contains those very same verses) is true.

I'm pretty sure that's what doc said up there.

I almost missed this in my first reading of the day's posts, but you're dead right - he's actually trying to get away with saying "the "New Testament" is true because "the Gospels" say it's true.

The level of dishonesty in DOC's arguments has moved well beyond 'embarrassing' and into the realm of 'obscene'. It's difficult to understand that he does this in the name of what he believes Christianity to be.

 

[amb]

DOC keeps on harping about Luke been a great historian. Exactly who was Luke? Most babblical historians don't attribute the gospel named Luke to a Luke the companion of Paul.

No one knows who wrote the gospel as is the case with all four of them. They are all anonymous. It wasn't until mid second century that names were given them.

 

[Mojo]

Who has called Luke one of the world's greatest historians, and on which grounds?

DOC has something quote-mined form a 19th century source (you may be familiar with the ploy from your adventures with homoeopaths).

 

[Belz...]

Who has called Luke one of the world's greatest historians, and on which grounds?

Ugh. Did you have to bring that up again ?

 

[Aepervius]

Should not a mod split this thread , close this one, and make a new one with a "2" in the title (the return of the vengance of ...")?

We had a problem reaching the 400 pages with the bigfoot thread , it made the forum software hi-cup...

Is the problem still existing ?

 

[amb]

This thread is about DOC's big foot in his mouth me thinks!

 

[kmortis]

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred. That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

Let's parse this so that my point will be better illustrated.

Well the Gospel writer Luke who has been called one the of the world's great historians (regarding things that can be verified by historical and archaeological evidence) wrote that the apostle James was martyred.

Ok, striking out the parenthetical portions we're left with the claim that "Luke¹ wrote that the apostle James was martyred"

That Luke was called "one the of the world's great historians" is immaterial to this claim. People can claim surpurlatives all they want, but it makes no difference to this claim.

That is real historical evidence, ask any historian.

No, you made a claim. You didn't present evidence. Since the premise of this entire thread is that the NT authors (which this Luke is one of) told the truth, you cannot use a claim in the NT as evidence that it is a truthful document. What you need to do is find some other source, that is not the Bible to provide support for this claim. You have yet to do this.

Not only that but this great historian Luke reports the apostles were constantly preaching even though they knew it was extremely dangerous. The book of Acts Chapter 5: 17-42 reports the apostles were thrown in jail for preaching weeks after the resurrection and the very next day they were out preaching again. They were flogged because of that and threatened again with jail but they still kept preaching daily

(Ramsay's claim about Luke is redacted to simplify this passage)

Again, you present a claim of the NT. This is one that should be easy to find support for, at least in terms of the socital side. That particular people were doing things, you will probably have a difficult time finding support that they did any particular activity, but this passage is general enough that you should be able to show that the socio-political environment was not conducive to the expanse of early Christianity.

Acts 5: 40 They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Another claim from the NT. Go, find support.

Acts 5: 41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

Another claim from the NT. Go, find support.

So we have historical writings from a known great historian that the apostles were continuing to preach even though they had been put in jail and flogged for it and warned not to do it anymore. Does this sound like an environment where the apostles could be martyred like Stephen (reported by Luke) and the apostle James (reported by Luke) - yes, most definitely. So we have definite historical evidence people at that time were being martyred and we have historical evidence that the apostles were daily engaged in activities that could have gotten them at the very least put in jail and flogged; and if fact did get them put in jail and flogged.

More claims. You say that we have evidence, but provide none. I looked for a foot- or endnote² but couldn't locate them, did your publisher leave them our for some reason?

Oh, I know, now some skeptic may say but it's in the bible. And I say the NT writers never heard the word "New Testament" or Bible because the Bible didn't exist yet. These men (like the physician Luke) were reporting on the facts and information of the day just like any reporter or historian would. The fact that their writings became part of a book (the Bible) officially formed hundreds of years later does not affect the historicity of those writings (especially regarding Luke).

You are exactly right. Skeptics do say "but it's in the Bible". You are trying to support the claim that the NT (aka Bible) authors told the truth. Somewhere along the way, some group of people, for whatever reason, decided that this group of 66 books had enough internal consistancy that they could be taken as a collective whole. You have bought into the religion that both fostered that idea, and has been established because of it. Your claim is that the people who wrote those books were truthful in their authorship of those books. Your OP claim was that the authorS of the New Testament (a collection of 27 books taken as a whole) told the truth. You cannot now, take them piecemeal and say they support one another when the veracity of one has not been established.

And then there are the apostles Peter and Paul. We know both of them ended up preaching in Rome of all places.

How do we know this? Any extra-Biblical sources?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85633

Does that sound like a dangerous thing to do under the reign of Nero who was impaling Christians and setting them on fire to provide light for his parties?

You do realize that Nero's reputation was severly embellished by his detractors, right? While he did engage in persecution of the Christians, there is no evidence that he did so with the depravity that you describe, nor was it any more extreme than what he gave to others who were seen as troublemakers at the time.

Given all of the above, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the oral tradition evidence (which was very important in that day of little literacy and no paper) regarding the martyrdom of the apostles was accurate.

Well, unless you have a time machine that allows us to go back and interview a native of the time, there is no oral evidence. All we have is written accounts. And, since you gave no evidence, just claims, there';s nothing to support your claim about the martyrdom of anyone.


¹For the purposes of this discourse, I'm using "Luke" to mean "the person who penned the Gospel called Luke". For the sake of argument, I'm willing to agree that the Gospel and the Book of Acts had the same author.
²These are endnotes, by the way. Actually, they're both endnotes and footnotes, but that's only because my post isn't multiple pages. Footnotes come at the bottom of the page, endnotes at the end of the document.

 

[MRC_Hans]

DOC has something quote-mined form a 19th century source (you may be familiar with the ploy from your adventures with homoeopaths).

Well, well, is there no end to the inventions made in the 19th century?

Hans

 

[bikerdruid]

doc is still on his sabbatical?

 

[paximperium]

Well, well, is there no end to the inventions made in the 19th century?

Hans

It's buried in this thread.
He quote mines Sir William Ramsay a 19th century historian.
He was shown to be lying and quote mining sometime in the middle of 2009 and keeps spewing this nonsense.

“The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the Book of Acts—KB]. 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.”
(1915, p. 89)
Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).

I'd suggest anyone who have any interest in what Ramsay actually said, read this summary by X.
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...87&highlight=luke+great+historian#post5449187
His original quote was found after much work by the other posters here.

This is of course in an age when Sir William did not have access to modern archeology so his conclusion is rather outdated.

 

[Rincewind]

doc is still on his sabbatical?

Maybe the dichotomy finally got to him/her?

You know, like in those Star Trek episodes where Spock got the computer to explode by supplying contradictory data?

The two phrases - "There IS evidence" and " There IS NO evidence" have been bouncing around inside DOC's head, until it finally exploded?

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe the dichotomy finally got to him/her?

You know, like in those Star Trek episodes where Spock got the computer to explode by supplying contradictory data?

The two phrases - "There IS evidence" and " There IS NO evidence" have been bouncing around inside DOC's head, until it finally exploded?

Something like this?

​

The more observant will note that the Babel Fish has a cousin who occasionally appears on this forum.

Whereas the Babel Fish is named after the mythical Tower of Babel, his cousin is named after the leader of the people who allegedly built it.

Nimrod​

Funny how it all fits together if you have the right perspective.

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- William Shakespeare (famous historian)​

. . . or so it is said

 

[carlitos]

But you forget that that argument doesn't count any more because when the New Testament writers wrote the New Testament they didn't call it the New Testament or know that it would be called the New Testament so it's not really the New Testament so verses from the New Testament are not really from the New Testament and can be used as evidence that the New Testament (which, although now called the New Testament, contains those very same verses) is true.

I'm pretty sure that's what doc said up there.

Which is interesting, given that the phrase was used in the gospels. That's where it originated, after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_testament#Etymology_of_the_term_.22New_Testament.22

Use of the term New Testament to describe a collection of writings can be traced back to the Latin Novum Testamentum first coined by Tertullian. Some believe this in turn is a translation of the earlier Greek καινὴ διαθήκη. This Greek phrase is found in the text of the New Testament itself, where it carries the meaning "new covenant" and is so translated (see Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthains 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, and Hebrews 9:15; cf. 2 Cor 3:14). The phrase also appears earlier, in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). In Jeremiah 31:31, the Septuagint used this Greek phrase to translate the original Hebrew ברית חדשה (berit chadashah). The Hebrew term is also usually translated new covenant.

Can someone point me to a serious discussion or book about the whittling down from various gospels, letters and epistles into the New Testament canon? Just curious.

 

[John Jones]

So are you saying that the fact that a great historian (Luke) wrote that the apostles were put in jail and flogged for preaching (after Christ was crucified) and then were told not to do it again, but they continued to publicly do it daily, does not increase the probability that the apostles were indeed martyred?

Luke who?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Luke who?

The Editor
The Times
London

Dear Sir,

today I heard the first lukewho of Spring, is this a sign of climate change?

Yours,

etc

 

[Hokulele]

Can someone point me to a serious discussion or book about the whittling down from various gospels, letters and epistles into the New Testament canon? Just curious.

I haven't read anything specifically on that topic, but you may want to start a new thread, probably here in the History sub-forum. If you do that, I will PM a link to some people who may have better resources than I do.