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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Akhenaten said:
Thanks heaps for this, and indeed for all of your contributions.

I hope you're not too dismayed at DOC's intransigence because the rest of us are here to actually learn stuff and it's a pleasure to have someone as knowledgeable as yourself join the 'teaching' staff.

:)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliments; but I'm also just an interested amateur in biblical history :) - I just happen to have had a solid education in Latin and Greek at school, so this was a nice reason to try my hand at it again. And I know DOC's intransigence from the "baby name Muhammed thread" :D, though I can still try again:

So, DOC, how is it with that translation of Luke 2:2?

As to Quirinius' census, here's another nice write-up on the case. Apart from Josephus and Luke, there is actual material evidence that Quirinius held a census: the "Lapus Venetus", a tombstone of Quintius Aemilius Secundus. The stone mentions that Aemilius assisted in a census organized by Quirinius and was responsible for carrying it out in the city of Apamea. It doesn't give a date for the census, but it is evidence that Quirinius held a census at some point in time.

I'll pre-empt DOC and spare him embarrassment of a next gaffe: the article also mentions "archaeologist" Jerry Vardaman. He claimed to have found "microletters" of about 0.5mm height (1/50 inch) on Aemilius' tombstone and on scores of coins which would rewrite history (and bring the Luke story in line with the Matthew story). Needless to say, no-one else has found these and his "results" have only partially been published in a non peer-reviewed book. The article of Richard Carrier I linked to hilariously debunks his claims.

What I don't understand is: why Fritz Heichelheim tried to resort to these Christian apologetics. From the German wiki page, I get that he was born in 1901 in a wealthy German Jewish family, He went on to study ancient history at three reputable universities - and then I fill in with what I know of German education at the time that he already had a solid education in Latin and Greek during high school - and became "Privatdozent" in 1929, i.e., he was one step from getting tenure as a full professor when he was booted out of the country in 1933. He fled to England, read at Cambridge but without tenure, and only got tenure in 1942 in Nottingham as assistant lecturer - so, below his level. Was he so desperate to get into favour for a job that he resorted to these apologetics (which was in 1938)? Would that even work in England at the time? It doesn't make sense to me why a Jew would write an apology for Christian scripture.
 
Last edited:
Lucian said:
Thank you for this. I can put up with the lack of question marks, but "would of" makes me tear my hair out.

DOC: "Of" is NOT A VERB!
Click to expand...
Seconded.

In the olden days of Usenet, when I first (πρωτος :D) read what people write online (in English) I really had trouble understanding sentences containing it - it really took me some time before realizing that some write "of" instead of "have" in those word combinations. I still don't quite get it - do you like being seen as illiterate? - and it still grates me like nails on a blackboard.
 
ddt said:
So, DOC, how is it with that translation of Luke 2:2?
Click to expand...


How about it DOC?
You presented the argument, are you going to defend it?
Or will you concede that it isn't true?


More than likely, you will simply pretend that there is still debate about it and use this to pretend that luke didn't make stuff up.
 
joobz said:
How about it DOC?
You presented the argument, are you going to defend it?
Or will you concede that it isn't true?


More than likely, you will simply pretend that there is still debate about it and use this to pretend that luke didn't make stuff up.
Click to expand...


Whatever he does, I'm willing to bet he doesn't try "No comment" again.

:)
 
ddt said:
it really took me some time before realizing that some write "of" instead of "have" in those word combinations. I still don't quite get it - do you like being seen as illiterate? - and it still grates me like nails on a blackboard.
Click to expand...
When spoken in American English the contracted form of "would have," "would've," and "would of" sound the same, but we were trained to believe that contractions are not "proper English," so many, wrongly, default to the non-contracted, but phonetically correct, spelling to sound more edumacated.

And to this day, most software flags "would've" as incorrect while letting "would of" slide. After all, it's made of two perfectly acceptable English words. The geeks who write spell checking software are actually as illiterate as we thought.
 
Akhenaten said:
"What did you do in the Grammar Wars, Grampa?"

"Well son, I was a punctuator."

:)
Click to expand...
I smuggled Commas out of Europe.

How, Grampa?

In my colon, and in semis. The unlucky ones were eaten, shot, and mulched.1


1The Diary of Strunk and White, p. 7, Wagnalls, 1943.
 
Rincewind said:
You would of course have evidence?

:)
Click to expand...


Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Adjectives About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.


Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Over Capitalisation and Difficult Clause Constructions of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.


Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Adverbs of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made grammar easier for themselves."


Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unpunctuated Accounts.

if they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images the book says the gospels talk about the resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way


Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Spelling Mistakes and Bad Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Verbs Under Persecution Or Threat Of Getting An 'F'.
 
Akhenaten said:
Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Over Capitalisation and Difficult Clause Constructions of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.
Click to expand...
Jesus' Drunk Daemon-possessed Deceiving Description. Does Geisler not know that excessive alliteration is an abomination to the lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom