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

[Garrette]

Let me summarize DOC's position for the claim of the truth in the NT:

Ramsay says Luke was a great historian, even though Ramsay said Luke was wrong about the census and much of Ramsay's work has been shown unreliable.

Muncaster says Luke was right, even though Muncaster has been shown to be unreliable.

Other sources say so, too, but they either don't mention their sources or their sources trace back to sources already shown to be absent or faulty.

Rome had influence over Judea.

There is no document that shows a census didn't happen.

We don't have Julius Caesar's signature.

Therefore the NT is right.

Did I leave anything out?

 

[Lothian]

Why put out information that can possibly be contested by people of the time, it doesn't make sense to do that.

The time the story was first written there was no one alive who would have known whether there was a census or not. As we know there are no recorded of one.

You also make the mistake of assuming that the first versions of the story contained the census. In the first versions Jesus was just a preacher, there was no need to fabricate a trip to Bethlehem to fulfil any prophesy. I guess the birth fable was added when the story changed to make him the son of a god.

 

[DOC]

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.

Absence of evidence of an event is not proof the event did not occur, especially given the complex relationship Rome had with Judea at the time as shown near the end of post 19280. And yet some people talk like there is proof the census did not occur, which is not logical.

 

[DOC]

Let me summarize DOC's position for the claim of the truth in the NT:

Ramsay says Luke was a great historian, even though Ramsay said Luke was wrong about the census and much of Ramsay's work has been shown unreliable.

Source??

 

[Garrette]

Source??

Excellent question!

 

[Hokulele]

Wait, we can cite high school textbooks as authoritative sources now?


I can't wait until evolution and abiogenesis make a come back in this thread.

 

[John Jones]

Absence of evidence of an event is not proof ...

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

LOOK AT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!

 

[DOC]

Let me summarize DOC's position for the claim of the truth in the NT:

Ramsay says Luke was a great historian, even though Ramsay said Luke was wrong about the census and much of Ramsay's work has been shown unreliable.

Source

Muncaster says Luke was right, even though Muncaster has been shown to be unreliable.

This blanket statement about the former skeptic author of the 600 page book "Examine the Evidence" means nothing without an explanation.

Other sources say so, too, but they either don't mention their sources or their sources trace back to sources already shown to be absent or faulty

What sources were shown to be fautly?

Rome had influence over Judea.

There is no document that shows a census didn't happen.

I never said your second sentence.

We don't have Julius Caesar's signature.

Therefore the NT is right.

Never said "Therefore"

Did I leave anything out?

Yes, very much of the information I put in my other 2400 posts in this thread. For example this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

 

[Mojo]

DOC, is there any chance that you can answer this simple question:

Which year did Luke say this census took place in?

 

[John Jones]

Yes very much of the info I put in my other 2400 posts. For example this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...46#post5959646

Another redonkulous appeal to your number of posts, and your previously debunked arguments.

FAIL.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

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

Nothing you've said in the last 2½ years has sounded even remotely academic, DOC, so you're hardly in a position to criticise anyone else on that account.

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

The difference is that Lothian's opinion is based on evidence and that's why it's the opinion that almost all of us share. Your apologists' opinions are based on little more than their religious beliefs.

What you note or don't note is completely irrelevent.

DOC, if a census was made at the time of Jesus' birth, why is there no record of it?

Maybe for the same reason we have no signature for Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world during that era..

And maybe it was for the same reason that Donald Duck wears a blue sailor suit.

You don't have any idea of what a non sequitur is, do you, DOC?

We have records of censuses before and after, but not that one.

That still is not proof it didn't occur . . .

It's evidence, DOC. A thing or things useful in forming an opinion. It's what you don't have an iota of and why your opinions are completely without merit.

. . . 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.

Speculative drivel.

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

Evidence and reason refutes your point.

As stated it doesn't make sense . . .

<snip>

As stated, this nonsense about what does or doesn't make sense to you is nothing like evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth. It's evidence of your inability to apply even a modicum of critical thinking, or even simple honesty, to the subject at hand.

Only this, and nothing more.

 

[Garrette]

Source

Read it.

This blanket statement about the former skeptic author of the 600 page book "Examine the Evidence" means nothing without an explanation.

Sigh.

What sources were shown to be fautly?

Which of your sources are you talking about? (I'm not being flippant; I said sources of sources)

I never said your second sentence.

Which explains why I did not use quotation marks, but if you insist you didn't say something which means the same thing, I'll have to quote your own posts back at you. I'm too tired for that, so please don't make me do it. You've done it too much in the past, and we already know you debate dishonestly so there's no need to prove it further.

Never said "Therefore"

I suppose my whole argument falls flat because of this? Note that, once again, I did not use quotation marks.

Yes, very much of the information I put in my other 2400 posts in this thread. For example this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

Ah. So you want to include things that aren't evidence on your list of evidence?

 

[joobz]

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

Not at all.

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.

this argument makes no sense. Please try again.

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.

Well, given the fact that he did make up a story that IS easily contested, one must assume that Luke isn't a great historian.

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

And yet, there's no record of a census at the time that fits with Jesus' birth. There's records of census before the time and after the time in question. but not of the time in question...strange.

 

[Akhenaten]

Absence of evidence of an event is not proof the event did not occur, especially given the complex relationship Rome had with Judea at the time as shown near the end of post 19280. And yet some people talk like there is proof the census did not occur, which is not logical.

DOC, the thread is supposed to be about you providing evidence that blokes like the alleged Luke were telling the truth. In this instance, that means producing extra-biblical evidence that Luke told the truth about the census.

When will you be doing that?

 

[Akhenaten]

Source??

The approximately 16,800 posts in this thread that you didn't write, just for starters.

How many days will you be needing to read them?

 

[Akhenaten]

Wait, we can cite high school textbooks as authoritative sources now?

Only if they're on Amazon. Preference given if the author is Sir Somebodyorother.

I can't wait until evolution and abiogenesis make a come back in this thread.

Aren't they the same thing?

 

[joobz]

Since we are back to using statements from historians as evidence. I'd like to reintroduce to the modern historical view of the bible and it's value as a historically reliable account.

This situation changed dramatically, however, during the last three decades of the twentieth century. Scholars trained specifically as archaeologists dominated archaeological fieldwork in the modern nation-states of the ancient biblical world, and many of their discoveries, the result of a more systematic approach to archaeological fieldwork, raised difficult questions regarding the historicity of biblical texts. At times the results even seemed to contradict events described in the Bible. Whearas the early generation saw some hope in finding an "essential continuity" between the events that were deemed factual and the biblical narratives, the results of recent research have tended to conclude that such continuity is unlikely to emerge.

From
Jerusalem in Bible and archaeology: the First Temple period
2003.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let me summarize DOC's position for the claim of the truth in the NT:

Ramsay says Luke was a great historian, even though Ramsay said Luke was wrong about the census and much of Ramsay's work has been shown unreliable.

Source

Been there, done that.

Muncaster says Luke was right, even though Muncaster has been shown to be unreliable.

This blanket statement about the former skeptic author of the 600 page book "Examine the Evidence" means nothing without an explanation.

The explanations have been given time and again over the course of the thread, DOC. That you choose to pretend that they simply don't exist is your problem and yours alone.

Want some evidence of this?

Provide a list of all the people who agree with you - the lack of names on it will serve nicely.


After you've done that you might answer the question that you seem to have overlooked about the significance of the number of pages in the books you claim as references.

Other sources say so, too, but they either don't mention their sources or their sources trace back to sources already shown to be absent or faulty

What sources were shown to be fautly?

All of yours. You really need to try and keep up a bit better.

Rome had influence over Judea.

There is no document that shows a census didn't happen.

I never said your second sentence.

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.

That still is not proof it didn't occur . . .

Close enough, Wilbur.

We don't have Julius Caesar's signature.

Therefore the NT is right.

Never said "Therefore"

That's because you've never managed to arrive at a valid conclusion.

Did I leave anything out?

Yes, very much of the information I put in my other 2400 posts in this thread. For example this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5959646#post5959646

Just some whining and a few thousand logical fallacies.

 

[ddt]

From the article "Luke the HIstorian" Catholic Encyclopedia

So why don't you link to the online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia but to some obscure other site?

Anyway, the text is indeed faithfully copied.

"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."

Do you have any evidence for the part I highlighted? I checked the two quotes from Josephus at Gutenberg (book XVI ; book XVII) and they're right, but I've been too lazy to read the part in between. So, where does it say Augustus asked Herod to conduct a census?

I also take issue with the next sentence. Herod wanted the allegiance of his people, he didn't number them. Where Josephus says that Herod got assurance from "all the people of the Jews" for their good-will towards Caesar, I imagine he means Herod's vassals, not down to every single Jew - that would be quite impractical.

 

[Mojo]

rome had influence over judea.

There is no document that shows a census didn't happen.

i never said your second sentence.

***cough***

also if he did make it up, funny how no contemporary writers for hundreds of years as far as we know said "hey wait a minute there was not a census in that year" (especially since christianity was a threat to your empire's religion).

In fact can anyone give the name of the first person (and what year they said it) who said there was no census in that year?