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

Status
Not open for further replies.
amb said:
Sounds like he/she may be a JW.
Click to expand...
No, JWs tend to downplay the divinity of Jesus, which DOC has never done. My confusion comes in that he willingly draws from both evangelical and Catholic sources without reservation. Generally, Evangilcals don't recognize the Vatican's authenticity and, to a lesser extent, vice versa.

He's a weird DOC.
 
kmortis said:
No, JWs tend to downplay the divinity of Jesus, which DOC has never done. My confusion comes in that he willingly draws from both evangelical and Catholic sources without reservation. Generally, Evangilcals don't recognize the Vatican's authenticity and, to a lesser extent, vice versa.

He's a weird DOC.
Click to expand...
he's not catholic, as he does not believe in transubstantiation.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4374289#post4374289

It is likely that he's "non-denominational". He's stated a number of times that sects don't get it fully right, but are "closer to right" than other religions.

But his use of "Godhead" is confusing to me. I don't know of many big christian religions which use the phrase.
 
joobz said:
But his use of "Godhead" is confusing to me. I don't know of many big christian religions which use the phrase.
Click to expand...

Interesting; it's a very familiar term to me, though not one I'd use myself; I'm not sure where I picked it up from. Let me see if I can work it out.
 
catsmate1 said:
Oh wow........... OK, it is now apparent that you are either, primus, not actually reading posts before responding to them; secundus, attempting to avoid supporting your silly assertions by lying or, ultimus, profoundly stupid. Which is it?

I gave the number of the post in this thread in which you personally made the ridiculous, and unsupported, claim that claim that Romans thought highly of Luke as a historian

To help you I've highlighted the post number. Hokulele has quoted it for you. Just be be sure, here's the post number: 15661
 Are you going to back up your assertion about Luke or withdraw it. It's been four months with nothing from you but evasions.

And while you're at it why not supply some of the evidence of my six points, quoted above, that you claim to have made but seem to be unable to show...............
Click to expand...

I'm not certain that I understand the pile-on here, so bear with me.

DOC posted this:

Oxford scholar A.N. Sherwin-White wrote:

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. - A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.​

Now, I don't know whether he's read that book and would guess that the above is a cut & paste from somewhere else, nor do I know how accurate this Sherwin-White guy is, but at least he appears to have posted a source for the claim. Some scholars think Luke wrote Acts, and this guy Sherwin-White thinks that Roman historians have long taken for granted the historicity. Perhaps Sherwin-White is an apologist, and maybe he can't be trusted, but at least DOC citing it is evidence of something, right?

Apologies if I'm wrong and I missed it.
 
There are two problems here (well, three, but the third is just DOC failing to read other people's posts again). One, this is a second hand claim, not primary source evidence. There is no evidence that Roman historians accepted Acts as historicallly accurate, such as actual citations from any Roman historians, just Sherwin-White's opinion on that. Two, even if Sherwin-White's statement were supported by citations, that certainly doesn't mean Roman historians "thought highly of Luke as an historian", just that they accepted some of the facts as facts. This could be something as trivial as "there is a road to Damascus", not "Jesus was the son of God".

My main issue is the third one in that DOC's entire response was a classic example of how he only skims other people's comments, else he would have known that catsmate1 did in fact provide a reference to DOC's original comment (via post number and date). In addition, had DOC followed the reference provided, he would have known that he (DOC) did in fact make the personal claim that Romans thought highly of Luke''s historical work, inflating the claim made by Sherwin-White.
 
joobz said:
he's not catholic, as he does not believe in transubstantiation.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4374289#post4374289

It is likely that he's "non-denominational". He's stated a number of times that sects don't get it fully right, but are "closer to right" than other religions.

But his use of "Godhead" is confusing to me. I don't know of many big christian religions which use the phrase.
Click to expand...

That'll be a Docist then?

The one and only high priest of Docism?
 
joobz said:
But his use of "Godhead" is confusing to me. I don't know of many big christian religions which use the phrase.
Click to expand...


Peter Cook used the term "manifest flying beast-head in the sky" in the end of the world sketch, but I assume that was an early reference to the FSM.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, am I the only one who reads the Sherwin-White quote as referring to contemporary Roman historians -e.g. present day historians of Rome rather than actual Roman historians back from the glory days of Rome? Aside from the patristic writers, I can't think of any specifically Roman historians that would have taken anything Luke said as fact.

Present day historians may very well use parts of Luke as evidence of local colour, popular customs etc. whilst discounting the supernatural elements.
 
Last edited:
pizzadeliveryninja said:
Just to clarify, am I the only one who reads the Sherwin-White quote as referring to contemporary Roman historians -e.g. present day historians of Rome rather than actual Roman historians back from the glory days of Rome?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's the only way it makes sense, now that you mention it. "Have long" shouldn't include only people from 2000 years ago. It should include a lot of people since then.
 
Lothian said:
Every single piece of 'evidence' you have given has been either fallacious or proved to be wrong. Most have been a combination of the two.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted; the posts are out there for people to see, and then they can have their opinion too.
 
DOC said:
Your opinion is noted; the posts are out there for people to see, and then they can have their opinion too.
Click to expand...

It's not opinion. If you disagree, perhaps you could produce either produce a reasoned rebuttal, or some actual evidence.
 
Originally Posted by DOC

Well other than Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian.

Oxford scholar A.N. Sherwin-White wrote:

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. - A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.


Hokulele said:
... Also note, in your opening sentence in this post, you personally claim that Roman historians thought highly of Luke as a historian. So, either provide some evidence to support this claim, retract it, or continue to present the facade of someone who is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


When you are a professional historian and you take the historicity of someone's writings for granted, you obviously think highly of that writer as a historian.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Faith is supposedly a strength of a Christian. Why would you claim an atheist has more strength than you? it makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

For the same reason I claim drive and determination is a strength, but I also claim Hitler had more drive and determination than most people. The problem with Hitler though was he had drive and determination for messed up, out of kilter, immoral thinking.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
For the same reason I claim drive and determination is a strength, but I also claim Hitler had more drive and determination than most people. The problem with Hitler though was he had drive and determination for messed up, out of kilter, immoral thinking.
Click to expand...
He thought he was guided by a higher power.

Nazi_badge_02-300x232.jpg


after all he had good friends who claimed to have a direct line to Jesus.

21hitlercardinal.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom