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

[amb]

True, but the greater the probability something is not made then the greater the probability it is true.




True, but if we know someone like Gospel writer Luke is highly detailed and accurate on non-supernatural facts it makes it more unlikely that he'd be loosey goosey and sloppy on reporting the 35 miracles he reported Christ, Paul and some other apostles performed, especially when he records them in the same matter of fact manner as he did all the other highly detailed facts he got right.


Then why did Sir William M. Ramsay call gospel writer Luke one the world's greatest historians (with regard to facts that can be proven through historical and archaeological means)?

DOC. You need to get a life. You cannot base your whole beliefs on these cretins. I have stated before, Luke was not the literal author of the gospel so named after him. The author of Luke, and three other gospels were all anonymous. None signed their names after each of the gospels. Names were given them much later, around the mid second century and later.

 

[Mojo]

Non-sequitur, and a strawman. It is a strawman because I've never said once in my 2100 posts that this fact (or facts) in the bible prove the bible is true.

Here's a recent post in which you cited the NT in a thread entitled "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth":

Who said I spent 10 days doing actual research?

And here are some more writings from Peter, Paul, and Luke describing the danger and difficulty of preaching in those times. Certainly conditions ripe for being martyred in the Roman Empire.

1 Peter 4: 12-19
1 Peter 5: 8-9
1 Peter 2: 19-21
1 Peter 4: 1-4

Phil 1: 29-30
Thesalonians 3: 7-8
Acts 22: 4-5
Romans 5: 3-4
1 Cor 4: 11-13

Either you are mistaken in your claim that you have not argued that the Bible shows that the Bible is true, or in that post and all the others like it you were off-topic and trying to derail the thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

"seem unlikely to be made up" is not the same thing as saying "it's true".

True, but the greater the probability something is not made then the greater the probability it is true.

"seem unlikely to be made up" ≠ "greater the probability something is not made [up]"

and

> 0 ≠ 1

Your knowledge of logic and of mathematics is as appalling as your knowledge of history.

Further, as has been said multiple times, the truth of some parts isn't evidence of truth of other parts.

True, but if we know someone like Gospel writer Luke is highly detailed and accurate on non-supernatural facts it makes it more unlikely that he'd be loosey goosey and sloppy on reporting the 35 miracles he reported Christ, Paul and some other apostles performed, especially when he records them in the same matter of fact manner as he did all the other highly detailed facts he got right.

We have no evidence that the alleged Luke even lived at the same time as the alleged Christ and the alleged Paul

We have no evidence of even a single miracle.

Stop making stuff up.

The bible is NOT a reliable source of history.

Then why did Sir William M. Ramsay call gospel writer Luke one the world's greatest historians (with regard to facts that can be proven through historical and archaeological means)?

Mainly because he was an apologist, and partly because at the time he wrote what he wrote, he had no better knowledge with which to work.

Since we're talking about Ramsay, when do you intend to respond to this post, DOC?

As if anyone would quote mine Ramsay.
BTW anyone read his THE BEARING OF RECENT DISCOVERY ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT recently?

He makes some interesting arguments.

Preface vii
"No one can comprehend Luke"

page 231
"Luke was all wrong about Herod, and about Quirinius"

page 235
"Luke, while desiring to be true, was guilty of an astonishing series of blunders in fact"

Page 253
"the idea of every person going to his own home to be enrolled was a pure fiction, and could not possibly have been true : it was a mere device to explain how Jesus could be born in Bethlehem of parents who lived in Nazareth : it was a false explanation of an invented occurrence: Jesus, if born at all, was born in the home of his parents."

page 273
"Luke was an incapable and untrustworthy historian"

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC I asked you a while ago about fiction: have you ever read any apart from the bible?

As it happens, he hasn't even read the whole Bible, or even the whole New Testament.

 

[Fiona]

As it happens, he hasn't even read the whole Bible, or even the whole New Testament.

Well I did first ask the question without the caveat: I was just wondering if it was against DOC's religion to read fiction: there are sects like that and it would explain a lot: including your observation

 

[Akhenaten]

Well I did first ask the question without the caveat: I was just wondering if it was against DOC's religion to read fiction: there are sects like that and it would explain a lot: including your observation

Indeed it would. I think you're on to something.

 

[Lothian]

I can quote important historical figures like Paul and Peter (who had tremendous historical importance by greatly changing the mighty Roman Empire) when I'm talking of the historical environment of the time.

If you were talking about the historical environment of the time you could although their testimony wouldn't get much weight. However here the subject is whether Paul and Peter told the truth. Do you think simply quoting them is evidence that they are telling the truth?

While you are at it, I am awaiting answers to the following. Very easy; each question Yes or No.

* 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 compendium of stories is evidence that the story is true?
* Do you accept that providing writings about danger and difficulty is evidence that the story is true?
* Do you accept that passages that seem unlikely to be made up is evidence that the story is true?

 

[Elizabeth I]

True, but if we know someone like Gospel writer Luke is highly detailed and accurate on non-supernatural facts it makes it more unlikely that he'd be loosey goosey and sloppy on reporting the 35 miracles he reported Christ, Paul and some other apostles performed, especially when he records them in the same matter of fact manner as he did all the other highly detailed facts he got right.

I believe someone else in this thread mentioned Moby Dick. Melville included pages and pages and pages of incredibly detailed facts about whaling practices of his era in Moby Dick - in fact, it's practically an encyclopedia of whaling. Does that mean the Pequod and its obsessed Captain Ahab and the bemused sailor Ishmael actually existed? Does that mean there was actually a great white whale that smashed a small ship to pieces, leaving the narrator of the story to save himself only by clinging to the coffin of his dead friend?

After all, we know there are whales, and whaling took place (in fact, still takes place), and there were whaling vessels and there still are captains and crews and coffins and friends. The ocean is out there for anyone to see.

Does any of that make Moby Dick an actual history instead of historical fiction?

 

[X]

"seem unlikely to be made up" is not the same thing as saying "it's true".

True, but the greater the probability something is not made then the greater the probability it is true.

"seem unlikely to be made up" ≠ "greater the probability something is not made [up]"

and

> 0 ≠ 1

Your knowledge of logic and of mathematics is as appalling as your knowledge of history.

Further, as has been said multiple times, the truth of some parts isn't evidence of truth of other parts.

True, but if we know someone like Gospel writer Luke is highly detailed and accurate on non-supernatural facts it makes it more unlikely that he'd be loosey goosey and sloppy on reporting the 35 miracles he reported Christ, Paul and some other apostles performed, especially when he records them in the same matter of fact manner as he did all the other highly detailed facts he got right.

We have no evidence that the alleged Luke even lived at the same time as the alleged Christ and the alleged Paul

We have no evidence of even a single miracle.

Stop making stuff up.

The bible is NOT a reliable source of history.

Then why did Sir William M. Ramsay call gospel writer Luke one the world's greatest historians (with regard to facts that can be proven through historical and archaeological means)?

Mainly because he was an apologist, and partly because at the time he wrote what he wrote, he had no better knowledge with which to work.

Since we're talking about Ramsay, when do you intend to respond to this post, DOC?

As if anyone would quote mine Ramsay.
BTW anyone read his THE BEARING OF RECENT DISCOVERY ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT recently?

He makes some interesting arguments.

Preface vii
"No one can comprehend Luke"

page 231
"Luke was all wrong about Herod, and about Quirinius"

page 235
"Luke, while desiring to be true, was guilty of an astonishing series of blunders in fact"

Page 253
"the idea of every person going to his own home to be enrolled was a pure fiction, and could not possibly have been true : it was a mere device to explain how Jesus could be born in Bethlehem of parents who lived in Nazareth : it was a false explanation of an invented occurrence: Jesus, if born at all, was born in the home of his parents."

page 273
"Luke was an incapable and untrustworthy historian"

QFD. Just in case he's forgotten about you, Akhenaten.


Oh, and how did you get the not-equal sign?
I've been having to use "!=", because I don't know how to get "≠".

 

[Akhenaten]

QFD. Just in case he's forgotten about you, Akhenaten.


Oh, and how did you get the not-equal sign?
I've been having to use "!=", because I don't know how to get "≠".

I'm using Windows and I have a tool running called Cardbox Quick Unicode Insertion Tool.

To create the ≠ character all I need do is hold down the ALT key and type .2260 on the numeric keypad.

It's also possible (again in Windows) to use Character Map (charmap.exe) and copy/paste Unicode Character 2260.

Here's a link to the Cardbox tool. Select "run immediately after installation" and "run when windows starts".

The Icon will appear in the System Tray area. Right Click to see the options.

Please let me know if I can give you any more help with it.

☺≠☻≤☼₪♂♫

 

[joobz]

I can quote important historical figures like Paul and Peter (who had tremendous historical importance by greatly changing the mighty Roman Empire) when I'm talking of the historical environment of the time.

Now you are introducing another argument as a smoke screen to the previous argument. This is a tiresome game.

Can we first agree that stories within a text doesn't prove the truthfulness of other stories within the same text? (the argument you made previously relies upon that point).

And what historical changes in any empire or country has the non-historical figure Harry Potter caused?

Now, you are attempting to qualify your argument by claiming the individuals in your story text are historical figures. Harry Potter was a good example of the first point. Now that you changed your argument, I simply need to provide other counter examples. Well, Multiple works of fiction contain historical persons. Read "the Eight" by Kathrine Neville. Harry Turtledove has made a career upon writing alternate history stories. There are multiple, multiple examples of fiction containing real historical people. None of those stories are made true by their presence.

 

[Hokulele]

Now, you are attempting to qualify your argument by claiming the individuals in your story text are historical figures. Harry Potter was a good example of the first point. Now that you changed your argument, I simply need to provide other counter examples. Well, Multiple works of fiction contain historical persons. Read "the Eight" by Kathrine Neville. Harry Turtledove has made a career upon writing alternate history stories. There are multiple, multiple examples of fiction containing real historical people. None of those stories are made true by their presence.

It is even worse than that. DOC is trying to get a free pass in establishing the various denizens of the New Testament as historical without any, you know, evidence to that effect.

DOC, just because there are some historical figures in the NT does not in any way act as evidence that all the characters were real people, exactly as described.

 

[bikerdruid]

Non-sequitur, and a strawman. It is a strawman because I've never said once in my 2100 posts that this fact (or facts) in the bible prove the bible is true.

even cursory analyzation of your posts would indicate otherwise.
you continually quote scripture to back up your claims of its veracity.

 

[bikerdruid]

Then why did Sir William M. Ramsay call gospel writer Luke one the world's greatest historians (with regard to facts that can be proven through historical and archaeological means)?

shouldn't we verify the credibility of ramsey, before we accept the veracity of any claims he has made?

 

[joobz]

It is even worse than that. DOC is trying to get a free pass in establishing the various denizens of the New Testament as historical without any, you know, evidence to that effect.

DOC, just because there are some historical figures in the NT does not in any way act as evidence that all the characters were real people, exactly as described.

Oh, I agree. But I was simply avoiding the "Are they real or aren't they argument". To which, DOC will merely give his tired Caesar Signature reply.

My point is that even if we accept the idea that every single one of the people in the bible are real people, it doesn't follow that the stories written are true. That is why we need external evidence, what DOC has claimed to possess and has not provided.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Go to your local hardware store and there obtain a screen-door spring. This is a tension coil spring, reasonably flexible, and about a foot long.

Remove the hooks at the ends, and weld or solder the two ends of the wire together. You will now have a wire which turns in a series of very tight helical coils, coils which eventually take it into a completely circular path.

You will also have an accurate visual metaphor for DOC's style of argument.

 

[Rincewind]

I think it's about time for me to summarise all of the promised details concerning the martyrdom of the apostle.

You know, the details that prove the veracity of , blah, blah blah.... etc.

So here goes my summary of DOC's scrupulous analyzationism:





Well - I'm convinced....

And a huge thank you to DOC for all of the work that he must have put in..

 

[Rincewind]

I've just seen something on TV - so it must be true.....

The scene is set in one of the living quarters on the mining ship Red Dwarf. (A Sci-Fi sitcom from the BBC) In the background of one scene, the television news is playing. The reporter has announced that the first page of the original Bible has been found in the Middle East.

It reads:
“To my darling Candy. All persons portrayed in this book are fictional. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental”.

So I guess that's conclusive.

Sorry DOC - but this proves you're wrong.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

True, but the greater the probability something is not made then the greater the probability it is true.

But something in one part of a story being true has no bearing on other statements in the same story

True, but if we know someone like Gospel writer Luke is highly detailed and accurate on non-supernatural facts it makes it more unlikely that he'd be loosey goosey and sloppy on reporting the 35 miracles he reported Christ, Paul and some other apostles performed, especially when he records them in the same matter of fact manner as he did all the other highly detailed facts he got right.

Or the writers were aware of the standard political practice that its easier to get people to swallow a lie if you mix it with truth. Which is a practice common to anyone trying to sway a mass of people anywhere anytime.
"Hey, these guys really hit the nail when talking about X and I know its true. So when they talk about Y they MUST be telling the truth too"
Hmmmm now why does this argument seem familiar all of a sudden?

Then why did Sir William M. Ramsay call gospel writer Luke one the world's greatest historians (with regard to facts that can be proven through historical and archaeological means)?

Because that is what was thought at the time. As many many others have explained to you over and over again, the data he based this comment on turned out to be wrong. But since he was long dead before this new data came to light he can hardle re-evaluate his statement.

 

[Lucian]

It is even worse than that. DOC is trying to get a free pass in establishing the various denizens of the New Testament as historical without any, you know, evidence to that effect.

DOC, just because there are some historical figures in the NT does not in any way act as evidence that all the characters were real people, exactly as described.

Sure it does. Look, Julius Caesar was a real person, right? (even though we don't have his signature). Ditto Anthony and Cleopatra, Henry IV, V, VI and VIII, Richard II and III and many more. William Shakespeare* wrote plays about these people. The plays record some historical events. All this makes it more likely that the events of A Midsummer Night's Dream are true. I've never said that it's proof, but it is evidence, if you properly analyzatimize the data.

*I should add that at the time he was active, Shakespeare had no idea that he was writing what would come to be known as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, so it is in no way circular reasoning to cite one bit of The Complete Works as evidence of another bit.