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

Lothian · Jan 25, 2011

DOC said:
Your opinion is ~~noted~~; correct the posts are out there for people to see, and then they can ~~have their~~ share your opinion too.

fixed.

zooterkin · Jan 26, 2011

Let's see. Despite having had it pointed out to you by Hokulele, you repeat the error.

The claim:

DOC said:
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.

The 'evidence'

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.

How on earth do you translate a claim about the basic historicity into "thought highly of" while keeping a straight face? Or perhaps you simply don't understand what it means? That would appear to be the case...

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.

No, really, you don't. You might think of them as a useful source of contemporaneous information, though.

Akhenaten · Jan 26, 2011

DOC said:
Your opinion is noted; the posts are out there for people to see, and then they can have their opinion too.

You like to say this a lot, DOC, but the fact is that you don't note other people's opinions at all.

I do.

Poster

|

Opinion

Summary

DOCs: 1
Agree with DOC: 2
Neutral/Undetermined: 4
Disagree with DOC: 318

Out there for all to see

Akhenaten · Jan 26, 2011

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.

my bolding

Indeed.

Messed up, out of kilter, immoral thinking.

joobz · Jan 26, 2011

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.

but you never said that as a counterargument to people.
It doesn't make sense at all in context of your original post.

DOC said:
The problem with Hitler though was he had drive and determination for messed up, out of kilter, immoral thinking.

What does that say about your faith?
After all, you've used messed up*, out of kilter*, immoral thinking** to support christianity?

*You frequently use logical fallacies (appeal to numbers and appeal to false authority), which is messed up and out of kilter thinking.
**You have a justified slavery as acceptable in defense of Jesus' condoning of slavery. You have also previously excused genocide because natives were savage cannibals. That's immoral thinking.

joobz · Jan 26, 2011

DOC said:
Your opinion is noted; the posts are out there for people to see, and then they can have their opinion too.

So you admit you haven't presented evidence, but only opinion?

Ok.

Lucian · Jan 26, 2011

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? 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.

I interpret the Sherwin-White quote the same way you do, but I have wondered how DOC interprets it. His statement, "Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian," seems rather ambiguous. And though it's been mentioned before, I think it bears repeating that apologists quote-mine Sherwin-White and take his words out of contexts: http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

Hokulele · Jan 26, 2011

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? 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.

carlitos said:
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.

I agree. It makes much more sense that way (and Lucian's link clarifies things even more). This is why it would have been much more helpful to have quotes from these Roman historians directly, rather than a passing reference from another person entirely that has been glommed on to by various apologists.

Akhenaten · Jan 26, 2011

I'd just about swear that DOC was referring to Flavius Josephus, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, et al. It's part of his mantra.

Zanders · Jan 26, 2011

Akhenaten said:
my bolding

Indeed.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Word8.jpg[/qimg]
Messed up, out of kilter, immoral thinking.

This is an interesting link for anyone that doubts Hitler's relation to Christianity. It also debunks the false claim that Charles Darwin and Nietzsche were influences on him.

Am I saying that Christianity is bad for influencing one crazy person? No. I just think it is something worth noting.

Hokulele · Jan 26, 2011

Wow. After poking around the blog Lucian linked, things get even worse for DOC and his blatant quote-mine of Sherwin-White. Read this later post from the same blog.

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/further-abuse-of-oxford-professor.html

It appears that what DOC quoted isn't quite correct. The real quote from Sherwin-White's book is as follows:

Sherwin-White said:
For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (RLRSNT p. 189)

DOC left out an entire sentence, one that calls Acts a "propaganda narrative" and subject to distortions. Talk about dishonesty!

Akhenaten · Jan 26, 2011

Hokulele said:
DOC left out an entire sentence, one that calls Acts a "propaganda narrative" and subject to distortions. Talk about dishonesty!

I'm shocked!!! Shocked I tells ya!!!

DOC would never . . .

Oh, wait . . .

Hokulele · Jan 26, 2011

Indeed.

This once again shows the need to verify things against primary sources, particularly when dealing with apologetics. I don't know if the following link will work:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zsNOgDtmt_AC&dq=sherwin+white&q=propaganda

If not, you can go into Google Books, bring up the listing of Sherwin-White's books, open Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, and do a keyword search on "propaganda". This will bring up the unbutchered version of this passage.

Akhenaten · Jan 26, 2011

Link work good, just upside-down.

Rincewind · Jan 26, 2011

Hokulele said:
Wow. After poking around the blog Lucian linked, things get even worse for DOC and his blatant quote-mine of Sherwin-White. Read this later post from the same blog.

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/further-abuse-of-oxford-professor.html

It appears that what DOC quoted isn't quite correct. The real quote from Sherwin-White's book is as follows:

DOC left out an entire sentence, one that calls Acts a "propaganda narrative" and subject to distortions. Talk about dishonesty!

But as we all know, lying for Jesus is perfectly acceptable - it's not like "real" lying at all.

Say Doc - getting anywhere with the location, method, etc of Simon the Zealot's death? If it's somewhere nice, maybe we could organise a pilgrimage?

Akhenaten · Jan 26, 2011

In that case, I'm going to vote for "Beheaded in Bermuda".

Lucian · Jan 26, 2011

Rincewind said:
But as we all know, lying for Jesus is perfectly acceptable - it's not like "real" lying at all.

Say Doc - getting anywhere with the location, method, etc of Simon the Zealot's death? If it's somewhere nice, maybe we could organise a pilgrimage?

He's not dead. He's pining.

Filippo Lippi · Jan 26, 2011

DOC.

The "D" stands for "Dishonest"

zooterkin · Jan 26, 2011

Rincewind said:
But as we all know, lying for Jesus is perfectly acceptable - it's not like "real" lying at all.

Say Doc - getting anywhere with the location, method, etc of Simon the Zealot's death? If it's somewhere nice, maybe we could organise a pilgrimage?

I think it will be more of a tour.

Cactus Wren · Jan 26, 2011

ddt said:
amb said:

Anyone know which denomination DOC belongs to?

Click to expand...

And for the serious answer: no. Some of us have asked it him upthread, but he hasn't replied to that.

Has he ever responded to the speculations that "DOC" is an acronym for "Disciples Of Christ"?

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

should be banned

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Heretic Pharaoh

Heretic Pharaoh

Tergiversator

Tergiversator

Illuminator

Deleterious Slab of Damnation

Heretic Pharaoh

Muse

Deleterious Slab of Damnation

Heretic Pharaoh

Deleterious Slab of Damnation

Heretic Pharaoh

Philosopher

Heretic Pharaoh

Illuminator

Philosopher

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Muse