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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
The above person without a degree of any sort was simply wrong as has been shown many times in this thread.
Click to expand...
Actually he has never been shown wrong: only that someone gave an opinion 20 centuries later that he guessed wrong; and even if he guessed wrong that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem
 
DOC said:
Actually he has never been shown wrong: only that someone gave an opinion 20 centuries later that he guessed wrong . . .
Click to expand...


Actually, he has never been shown even to exist. What were his credentials? When did he write this allegedly historically accurate gospel? What were his sources?

Extra-biblical answers for all of these questions, thank you.

After we get that sorted out maybe we'll be able to proceed to whether he was telling the truth or not.



DOC said:
. . . and even if he guessed wrong that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem
Click to expand...


So what we're really looking at here is evidence for why the NT writers may or may not have guessed the truth, but it doesn't matter anyway, since it's just true, because . . . ???
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
There is no fallacy in giving the number of pages in a high school history book. If I would have said the truth in the book is dependent on the number of pages that would be a fallacy, but I didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Good. Now replace "pages" with "posts in thread" and learn your lesson.
 
Of all the pathetic arguments in this thread, citing an unnamed "1100+ page High School History Book" as evidence is among the worst. It's as bad as DOC citing the number of his posts as evidence of something.
 
DOC said:
Actually he has never been shown wrong: only that someone gave an opinion 20 centuries later that he guessed wrong; and even if he guessed wrong that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem
Click to expand...

If you are writing about history and you include facts that you "guessed about" and didn't state they were guesses, that's called Lying and making crap up.

Luke lied and made crap up.

DOC, if a census was made at the time of Jesus' birth, why is there no record of it? We have records of censuses before and after, but not that one.

Further, WHy would a census require people to travel? Since when does that ever happen?

Evidence and reason refutes your point.
 
Did you notice the tags on that book's page on Amazon.com, DOC :rolleyes: One of them is 'false history'.

I don't know how American education works so don't know what age that book is aimed at, but I am loath to give a child's textbook more weight of evidence than the last two thousand years of scholarly enquiry into the claims of the NT.
 
DOC said:
Actually he has never been shown wrong: only that someone gave an opinion 20 centuries later that he guessed wrong; and even if he guessed wrong that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem
Click to expand...
18 centuries later someone said he got some locations right. For some reason you struggle to mention Luke's name without bringing this up.

Even Ramsay couldn't find any evidence of a census at the time of the birth. Looks like Luke lied.
 
DOC, would you agree that, using your definition of evidence, much evidence has been posted in this thread that the NT writers were NOT telling the truth?
 
John Jones said:
Of all the pathetic arguments in this thread, citing an unnamed "1100+ page High School History Book" as evidence is among the worst. It's as bad as DOC citing the number of his posts as evidence of something.
Click to expand...


Correction: Of all the pathetic arguments in this thread, citing an "1100+ page High School History Book" as evidence is among the worst. It's as bad as DOC citing the number of his posts as evidence of something.

Struck the word 'unnamed'. I didn't see my error until it was too late to edit. :o
 
DOC said:
Actually he has never been shown wrong: only that someone gave an opinion 20 centuries later that he guessed wrong; and even if he guessed wrong that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem
Click to expand...

If you are writing about history and you include facts that you "guessed about" and didn't state they were guesses, that's called Lying and making crap up.

Luke lied and made crap up.

DOC, if a census was made at the time of Jesus' birth, why is there no record of it? We have records of censuses before and after, but not that one.

Further, WHy would a census require people to travel? Since when does that ever happen?

Evidence and reason refutes your point.
 
John Jones said:
Of all the pathetic arguments in this thread, citing an unnamed "1100+ page High School History Book" as evidence is among the worst. It's as bad as DOC citing the number of his posts as evidence of something.
Click to expand...
I gave the link to the book on Amazon. The 1100+ page HIgh School history book that said historians believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem on page 168 is called 'World History - Patterns of Interaction".
 
DOC said:
I gave the link to the book on Amazon. The 1100+ page HIgh School history book that said historians believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem on page 168 is called 'World History - Patterns of Interaction".
Click to expand...


Any chance you might actually read the bloody thread like the rest of us do?

In any case, is this really the best you can do in the face of all the questions that your posting of this pathetic "reference" has raised?
 
joobz said:
If you are writing about history and you include facts that you "guessed about" and didn't state they were guesses, that's called Lying and making crap up.

Luke lied and made crap up.
Click to expand...

Using the word crap twice in one post sounds more emotional than academic...

Your opinion based on others opinions is noted. Other authors like Sir William M. Ramsay, and Ralph Muncaster have different opinions.

DOC, if a census was made at the time of Jesus' birth, why is there no record of it?
Click to expand...
Maybe for the same reason we have no signature for Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world during that era..

We have records of censuses before and after, but not that one.
Click to expand...
That still is not proof it didn't occur, and as I said why didn't the alleged great historian Luke just make up a story that couldn't be contested like Joseph and Mary decided to visit Joseph's hometown. If I was going to make up a story that Obama was born in Africa. I might say that Obama's dad (who has since died) was sick and asked his pregnant wife (who has since died) to come to Africa and he was born there. It doesn't make sense to say Obama's dad was running for the position of head of his city in 1962 and asked his wife to come to Africa for the election. Why put out information that can possibly be contested by people of the time, it doesn't make sense to do that.

Further, Why would a census require people to travel? Since when does that ever happen?

Evidence and reason refutes your point.
Click to expand...

As stated it doesn't make sense for the alleged great historian Luke to make up something like this when there are so many other easier ways he could have made up a story that could not be contested. And the whole political climate of that time was very complex as shown by the fact that Herod the Great had to go to Rome to get elected king of Judea (he was elected king of Judea in Rome) and the Roman army put him in power.

Here are other facts that show the influence of Rome on Judea. A census is certainly possible given the climate of that time:

From the article "Luke the HIstorian" Catholic Encyclopedia

"King Herod was not as independent as he is described for controversial purposes.

A few years before Herod's death Augustus wrote to him. Josephus, "Ant.", XVI, ix., 3, has: "Cæsar [Augustus] . . . grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he used him as a friend, he should now use him as his subject." It was after this that Herod was asked to number his people. That some such enrolling took place we gather from a passing remark of Josephus, "Ant.", XVII, ii, 4, "Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar [Augustus], and to the king's [Herod's] government, these very men [the Pharisees] did not swear, being above six thousand." The best scholars think they were asked to swear allegiance to Augustus. (4) It is said there was no room for Quirinius, in Syria, before the death of Herod in 4 B.C. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor there from 9-6 B.C.; and Quintilius Varus, from 6 B.C. till after the death of Herod. But in turbulent provinces there were sometimes times two Roman officials of equal standing. In the time of Caligula the administration of Africa was divided in such a way that the military power, with the foreign policy, was under the control of the lieutenant of the emperor, who could be called a hegemon (as in St. Luke), while the internal affairs were under the ordinary proconsul."


http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Luke.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom