The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Ravenshire]

You're the one that over-filled his plate starting all those threads...

Go ahead and use it as an excuse though. After all, any excuse works when you're looking for one.

"All those threads"?

Three. I've started three that are active.

You're the one using them as an excuse. Seeing as there's only three, that makes your excuse even weaker.

[Cyberman]

No need to come crying to me about the weight of responses your threads have attracted in a discussion forum. All I'm suggesting is perhaps you need to rethink your strategy, as clearly this one is more than you can handle without complaining.

[Randy Carson]

Luke: Fan Fic Writer Pretends to be a Historian

Is that what experts say? Let's see...

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."

Nope. Guess not. Guess atheists shouldn't pretend to be experts on subjects they know nothing about.

Like Matthew, Luke tries to elaborate on Mark, fleshing out a story of Jesus' birth and a bit of his childhood. He also gives us a number of milestones to offer more of a historical setting. Many Christian apologists such as Josh McDowell, praise the "incredible accuracy" of Luke as a historian. 

Evidently, McDowell read a different Gospel then the rest of us did.

No. He just actually read it.

Like Mark, Luke is a companion of Paul and not an "eye witness". He admits in his opening of his Gospel that he has stitched together the different accounts he has heard, acting as if he were a historian.

What Luke admits is that he has done his homework...something that your forum mates do not want to credit him with at all. So, watch your back...you've just given away the store.

I'll finish this tomorrow.

[Brakeman]

Luke: Fan Fic Writer Pretends to be a Historian

Is that what experts say? Let's see...

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."

Wow, You found two christian apologists that claimed the bible they believed in to be historical just 50 and 100 years ago! Wow! Were convinced now, we skeptical atheists just swoon at christian authorities of the early 1900's!

[Minimalist]

Edward Musgrave Blaiklock was chair of Classics at Auckland University from 1947 to 1968, and champion of Christian apologetic literature

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar.

Bible thumping shits is the best you can do, huh? Why am I not surprised. You can always trot out some jesus freak who tells you what you want to hear. I'll take real scholars, thank you very much.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What's funny is two of the four are not even attributed to "eye-witnesses", taking Christian claims of authorship at face value. Mark was no witness and neither was Luke. Luke even says so in his opening.

What does Luke say?

And Mark was the original, on which Matt and Luke were clearly based.

Who was Mark's source?

Mark was one of Paul's disciples.  So Paul was Mark's source.

[dyresand]

First off OP your stuff is getting unreadable it is butt condense it. 

Let's start with the big elephant in the room.




Next the other big elephant. 

I don't have a video for this so bear in mind its only a bit of reading.
okay so let's give god his famous powers.
1. all knowing
2. all powerful 
3. all intrusive and has everything

Free will goes out the window if he is all knowing and the fact being is he made us with those decisions.
So it wouldn't matter what ever you do it was all planned out you were either made to go to heaven or made
to go to hell. So as far as go to jesus to save you no you pretty much are already fucked from the get go. 

god created everything bullshit 




Also here faith healing 

[The Grand Nudger]

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

Do you really think so?


Lets test your resolve on this one.
-it is indisputable that if the reports of alien abduction can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the reports of alien abduction as a whole is greatly advanced.
Yeah? How about we try chupacabra, plug chupacabra in there. At what point is the argument greatly advanced, and how, for -any of these three things-?

You know what might -actually- advance the argument for the reliablility of the new testament? Establishing that there was anything to witness in the first place. Then, then, you could bullshit us endlessly about the accuracy of their testimony. Can't establish a "jesus", can't even establish a "paul".....and yet.....we're babbling on about eyewitness testimony as though it would matter even if it were.......lol.

[robvalue]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make ages ago in this thread, but for some reason it's always different when the subject is something other than Jesus. Or if someone is telling the wrong story about Jesus.

So it's simple special pleading, on top of ignoring the fact that eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. And even that is after giving the benefit of the doubt that they actually were eyewitnesses, and that they were actually trying to tell the truth about an event, and that the event actually happened. That's a whole pile of unfounded assumptions.

I guess we're back to little hurdles. I think Randy should really decide whether this is a simple textual analysis or an actual argument.

[dyresand]

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make ages ago in this thread, but for some reason it's always different when the subject is something other than Jesus. Or if someone is telling the wrong story about Jesus.

So it's simple special pleading, on top of ignoring the fact that eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. And even that is after giving the benefit of the doubt that they actually were eyewitnesses, and that they were actually trying to tell the truth about an event, and that the event actually happened. That's a whole pile of unfounded assumptions.

I guess we're back to little hurdles. I think Randy should really decide whether this is a simple textual analysis or an actual argument.

Pretty much the video touches all bases saying jesus didn't exist. I'm wondering why people take hearsay and a book for its word especially the bible when it's inaccurate and
written by ancient man.