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

[ThermionicScott]

The time frame of Harry Potter is presumably during the reign of Queen Liz II and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was set during Nixion's presidency. You point is?

I'll add that there is corroborating evidence in the documentary "Where the Buffalo Roam." The guy even uses the urinal next to Nixon's! He could have gotten his signature right there!

- Scott

 

[bikerdruid]

Nevertheless. The bible being the word of god says the world was flat. That's good enough for a literal reading of the scriptures and it's authors.

the bible does not say the earth is flat.

 

[kmortis]

Fine, I'll parse it. He'll just ignore it like all the others, but I'll do it for the exercise.

<snippage>

Damn, I'm good. I'll take my $1million now....

 

[Mojo]

QFD

This just demonstrates what I've said before, DOC is terrified to define one speck of evidence and I think that hurts his credibility.

I can see Doc saying, well yes that is some evidence if it is for the bible but it is not enough for another belief, but to just come out and admit that will demonstrate 2,150 posts from a closed mind

Prove me wrong and confirm the following. As ever a simple Yes or No will do.

* Do you accept that an author having an unpopular career is evidence that their story is true?
* Do you accept that an author being unknown prior to publication is evidence that their story is true?
* Do you accept that quoting someone in a book is evidence that they are telling the truth?
* 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?

It's OK, DOC has promised to respond to that:

I've might have missed posts, not had enough time to respond, etc... Mojo, you (and only you, since I don't have time to address everyone) are welcome to point out any single post I did not respond and I will respond to it.

I wasn't saying that you had not responded, but that you had not addressed the arguments. But how about this one?

He'll probably keep his Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses on though:

I fear nothing from any post.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's OK, DOC has promised to respond to that:




He'll probably keep his Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses on though:

That is great, DOC, in his very next post, is finally going to actually answer Lothian!

 

[Aepervius]

He'll probably keep his Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses on though:

It is relatively easy to do. just ignore the hard question, and you have nothing to fear from them !

 

[DOC]

Look at the title of the thread. Luke was a NT author. What Luke writes is not evidence that what Luke writes is true unless there is independent verification.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[joobz]

Thanks for your opinion.

That's not an opinion. It's a statement of sound logic.

 

[bikerdruid]

Thanks for your opinion.

doc...are you saying that what luke wrote can be used as evidence for his own veracity?

 

[carlitos]

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Elizabeth I]

doc...are you saying that what luke wrote can be used as evidence for his own veracity?

Oh, yeah. Yes. Yep. Roger. Mm-hmm. Uh-huh. That's what he's saying. And he's not even trying to be subtle about it any more.

 

[DOC]

...Christus: Annals 15.44.2-8 by Roman Senator/Historian Tacitus

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

...Not to mention that the Tacitus Quote you posted PROVES THE POINT that Tacitus can only confirm the existence of Christians, not of Christ. In other words, thanks for proving our point.

Not only does it not prove the point, but it is not evidence for the point. Nowhere does Tacitus say he can confirm only the existence of Christians and not Christ. In fact something different can be inferred. From reading the statement he appears to make a statement of fact when he says "Christus {Latin for Christ} from whom the name had its origin suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus".

Also when he says "...thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea..." this does not sound like something a Christian source would tell him, but rather something he got from other sources.

Bottom line is that this passage sounds very much like Tacitus was reporting all of the above as history. Why, because that is what famous historians do, they report history. And at the very least from the non-biblical passage (not to mention Josephus mentioning Christ twice) it is logical to conclude that it is "more likely than not" that there was a person called Christus or Christ who was given the death penalty by Pontius Pilate.

 

[DOC]

doc...are you saying that what luke wrote can be used as evidence for his own veracity?

Something written by a person whom other academics consider a good or great historian is historical evidence in my book, its not necessarily proof but it is evidence, if you have other criteria so be it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Also when he says "...thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea..." this does not sound like something a Christian source would tell him, but rather something he got from other sources.

This is where he was referring to Christianity as The Evil, right? So, do you believe that Christianity is The Evil since fiction hadn't been invented yet?

Here's more of the original quote since you left it out this time: "...thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil..."

 

[joobz]

Something written by a person whom other academics consider a good or great historian is historical evidence in my book, its not necessarily proof but it is evidence, if you have other criteria so be it.

And What about when even more modern scholars claim that the historian in question made up stories?

 

[Lucian]

Something written by a person whom other academics consider a good or great historian is historical evidence in my book, its not necessarily proof but it is evidence, if you have other criteria so be it.

Other academics? Is Luke an academic now, as well as a great historian? And how many academics say he was a great historian? One long dead one whose twentieth-century work is not highly regarded by other academics? Finally, it seems silly, but apparently necessary, to point out yet again that you gave this thread the title "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth." Luke can't be used as evidence for the veracity of Luke; the New Testament can't be used as evidence for the New Testament.

 

[bikerdruid]

Something written by a person whom other academics consider a good or great historian is historical evidence in my book, its not necessarily proof but it is evidence, if you have other criteria so be it.

other academics?
who would those be?
are you calling yourself an academic?

 

[John Jones]

DOC, You're starting to sound a little desperate. (OK, that's an understatement. Your arguments have been desperate for the last 2 years.)

The Book of Luke is not the evidence your opening post promised, even if you quote/misquote/paraphrase him 5,000 times.

Quoting 'Sir Ramsey' (who qualified his praise of the author of the Book of Luke) is not the evidence your opening post promised.

I haven't seen you provide anything in all your 2,500 posts (or what ever) that meet the promise of your opening post.


I've seen you duck difficult quests perhaps as least as often as you have made posts.

This thread is done. Stick a fork in it.

 

[DOC]

And What about when even more modern scholars claim that the historian in question made up stories?

Actually that person gave the opinion Luke guessed wrong on one occurrence so why did you falsely say the plural stories; and other scholars disagree that Luke guessed at it. And that scholar you are referring to also believes Christ's tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; also same scholar is still a Christian, isn't he?

 

[Lucian]

Actually that person gave the opinion Luke guessed wrong on one occurrence so why did you falsely say the plural stories; and other scholars disagree that Luke guessed at it. And that scholar you are referring to also believes Christ's tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and that scholar that you are referring to is also still a Christian, isn't he?

You can read Joobz's mind now? You know what scholar he's referring to, and you know that, despite his own words, he isn't referring to more than one comparatively modern scholar? Impressive.