19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou keep asserting that I am making claims when I am not and stating I reject out of hands things I do not; I regard that as an insult to my intelligence and integrity. You still just keep making sweeping statements and generalizations and haven't discussed the site I posted; I presume you refuse to read it.
I'll break it down.
When I say New Testament, I mean every place, person, position of authority in it. Archeology has proven Luke to be right when scholars thought he was wrong about places many times. Why, if Luke was simply lying to make up a story, would he be so meticulous about places and names, and then lie about what Jesus did? Can anyone give ...[text shortened]... le's on a personal level. Your life must prove to be a shining example for those who know you.
I'll give a rational possible answer to your question (without deciding whether it's the answer I believe); Luke was writing to an audience that would have been aware of the geography of the Middle East, therefore any inaccuracies in those matters would have been easily identified. However, if he wants to say Jesus stuck the ear back on of the guy Peter struck with the sword in the Garden (I believe that is only in Luke), he cannot be disproven as he wrote many years after the event and the participants were all dead and buried. Make sense? After all a Man-God must make perform miracles of this sort; an simple moral teacher would not be very impressive to ancient peoples, would it?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis doesn't make sense. Why was everyone dead but Luke? Keep in mind, the gospels say Jesus fed 5000 people (not including women and children) with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Were all those men, women and children dead?
You keep asserting that I am making claims when I am not and stating I reject out of hands things I do not; I regard that as an insult to my intelligence and integrity. You still just keep making sweeping statements and generalizations and haven't discussed the site I posted; I presume you refuse to read it.
I'll give a rational possibl ...[text shortened]... of this sort; an simple moral teacher would not be very impressive to ancient peoples, would it?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusUMM, Luke was NOT an eyewitness to ANY of what Jesus did. Read Luke 1:1-3:
This doesn't make sense. Why was everyone dead but Luke? Keep in mind, the gospels say Jesus fed 5000 people (not including women and children) with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Were all those men, women and children dead?
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Someone who was there wouldn't rely on things "handed down" by "eyewitnesses", would he? You might want to actually READ the New Testament before you try to make logical arguments about it.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusJust a simple question.
This doesn't make sense. Why was everyone dead but Luke? Keep in mind, the gospels say Jesus fed 5000 people (not including women and children) with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Were all those men, women and children dead?
Because they "said it", does it make it so? They "say" that "atlas lives on olympus".
Is it true? Just wondering.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOk, guys, I'll try breaking it down again.
Just a simple question.
Because they "said it", does it make it so? They "say" that "atlas lives on olympus".
Is it true? Just wondering.
No, Luke was not an eyewitness. However, he was a good friend of Paul's, who was an Apostle.
And since Luke wrote the gospel 20 or 30 years after Jesus died, why would people not check up on the facts before becoming a Christian (like Jesus told them to do?)
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusOh?
Ok, guys, I'll try breaking it down again.
No, Luke was not an eyewitness. However, he was a good friend of Paul's, who was an Apostle.
And since Luke wrote the gospel 20 or 30 years after Jesus died, why would people not check up on the facts before becoming a Christian (like Jesus told them to do?)
You saw this? you were there?
errrr....
Are we just talkin' good ole' boy mythology here?
You did see this. Right? Or you are so full of crap you can't walk?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyJesus tells them to do this in the gospels that WERE CIRCULATED 20 TO 30 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. I honestly doubt that all of the people mentioned in the gospels were dead. I also doubt that people who witnesses Jesus' miracles were dead. I also doubt that people didn't know where Jesus' tomb was. Ya know, the empty one.
Oh?
You saw this? you were there?
errrr....
Are we just talkin' good ole' boy mythology here?
You did see this. Right? Or you are so full of crap you can't walk?
It is a FACT that the gospels were circulated at that time. Can we get over that hump, please? Now, it is up to you, why Christianity would explode as a religion despite people being able to check out the "lies" or "myths" themselves. Would you read that Jesus rose from the dead, check out his tomb and see his body, and still become a Christian?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou were there? Thirty years after his death?
Jesus tells them to do this in the gospels that WERE CIRCULATED 20 TO 30 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. I honestly doubt that all of the people mentioned in the gospels were dead. I also doubt that people who witnesses Jesus' miracles were dead. I also doubt that people didn't know where Jesus' tomb was. Ya know, the empty one.
It is a FACT that the gospel ...[text shortened]... hat Jesus rose from the dead, check out his tomb and see his body, and still become a Christian?
Or?
You are a parrot? Repeating what you have been told?
Just wondering. Why should not god himself straighten out this mess?
Give me a reason as to why we have to "wonder" if what you say is true or if my challenge to god is true.
My challenge is simple. Face me. Let's debate.
Just like the five people I have challenged tonight here at RHP.
The rules to god are the same as the other cowards. Name the subject. Tell me which side I am on.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou arrogantly demand God to miraculously appear in the heavens just to appease you?! That is the epitome of arrogance. And it would defeat the purpose of creation you.
You were there? Thirty years after his death?
Or?
You are a parrot? Repeating what you have been told?
Just wondering. Why should not god himself straighten out this mess?
Give me a reason as to why we have to "wonder" if what you say is true or if my challenge to god is true.
My challenge is simple. Face me. Let's debate.
Just like ...[text shortened]... he rules to god are the same as the other cowards. Name the subject. Tell me which side I am on.
What would your reaction be, if God showed himself to you? Would you still laugh and curse him or bow to your knees in terror? Well, he doesn't want terror, he wants love. He gave us evidence if we're completely objective, and the rest is faith. Because faith is love to him. And that is what he desired when he made you.
19 Feb 05
2 edits
Do research, Star. See if historians agree that the gospels circulated at that time. Also see if the Bible tells them to weigh the evidence. Then come back to me with your conclusion. Oh, and don't just go to skeptical historians, see what the general consensus is. Be objective for once.
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusOk.
Do research, Star. See if historians agree that the gospels circulated at that time. Also see if the Bible tells them to weigh the evidence. Then come back to me with your conclusion. Oh, and don't just go to skeptical historians, see what the general consensus is. Be objective for once.
The consensus is that Jesus is the Son Of God.
In our country.
Happy?
Like the biggest group of barking chimps makes it right?
what do I care of "opinion"?
Did it ever occur to you that "opinion" is what is wrong with society?
I has occured to me. There is nothing worse than a vandal of howling chimps claiming blood for the sake of their size.
But. What do I know. Practically nothing. No. Make that nothing.
I am one in 6.5 billions.
So are you.
What do you know that I don't?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThis is a ridiculous assertion. Let us suppose that the Gospel of Luke was written in 60 AD, the earliest date I have seen asserted. Unlike today, there were no printing presses; how many copies do you think were circulated when they had to be copied by hand? Can you get over that this wasn't printed out like the lastest Stephen King novel? The number of people who would have seen Luke's gospels for the next 100 years or so would have been very small.
Jesus tells them to do this in the gospels that WERE CIRCULATED 20 TO 30 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. I honestly doubt that all of the people mentioned in the gospels were dead. I also doubt that people who witnesses Jesus' miracles were dead. I also doubt that people didn't know where Jesus' tomb was. Ya know, the empty one.
It is a FACT that the gospel ...[text shortened]... hat Jesus rose from the dead, check out his tomb and see his body, and still become a Christian?
Christianity was a small sect at the time; why would anybody bother to check out its claims? No historian or writer besides Luke and Matthew even mentioned Jesus until Josephus in 93 AD: your greatest event in history just wasn't considered a big deal. And logically IF so many people were aware of these great miracles, how come Christianity was such a small sect and how come some early Christians, like the Gnostics, didn't even believe in the Resurrection? Your argument is completely lacking in logic and you are projecting what you would have done as a fervent belever on millions of people who did not believe.
The historical evidence is pretty clear: Christianity was not a big deal in the first century AD. The fact that hardly anybody worried about it is evidence that Jesus didn't exist; NOT that nobody could refute his existence. Santa Claus is said to be able to perform miracles, but I don't feel the need to go the North Pole to "prove" he doesn't have a workshop with elves there; why would people in 60 AD be rushing to Jesus' tomb if they didn't believe in him?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, so instead of producing Jesus' body, the Romans would have rather had to hunt and kill Christians? Seems like a waste of resources.
This is a ridiculous assertion. Let us suppose that the Gospel of Luke was written in 60 AD, the earliest date I have seen asserted. Unlike today, there were no printing presses; how many copies do you think were circulated when they had to be copied by hand? Can you get over that this wasn't printed out like the lastest Stephen King novel? The nu ...[text shortened]... lves there; why would people in 60 AD be rushing to Jesus' tomb if they didn't believe in him?
Fine, the gospels weren't written for 40 years. However, the apostles preached all through Rome, Greece, Asia and Africa. Starting the day after Jesus died. People couldn't check evidence the day after Jesus died?
19 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusMaybe they did and that's why Christianity had so few converts. BTW, Did Luke, a converted Christian, ever go to Jesus' tomb? Or did he accept on faith that it was empty without ever seeing it?
Oh, so instead of producing Jesus' body, the Romans would have rather had to hunt and kill Christians? Seems like a waste of resources.
Fine, the gospels weren't written for 40 years. However, the apostles preached all through Rome, ...[text shortened]... died. People couldn't check evidence the day after Jesus died?
19 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusUm. Every person? Could you give me an archeological
When I say New Testament, I mean every place, person, position of authority in it. Archeology has proven Luke to be right when scholars thought he was wrong about places many times. Why, if Luke was simply lying to make up a story, would he be so meticulous about places and names, and then lie about what Jesus did? Can anyone give me a rational answer?
...[text shortened]... le's on a personal level. Your life must prove to be a shining example for those who know you.
verification of, say, the disciple Philip (outside of the Bible,
of course)? How about Joanna (who was at the tomb in
St Luke)? Or Nicodemus?
How about archeological evidence for the birthplace of Jesus?
Or the place where the Last Supper took place? How about
Golgotha?
Your claim that 'every place, person, and position of authority,'
is verifiable is laughable. I can count on the fingers of one hand
the specific people or places that can be verified by archeology.
Everything else is testimony that comes from the New Testament
literature.
You are correct about St Luke; he is very attentive to location
and detail, but only within Jewish territories. This suggests that,
unlike St Mark who is rather vague, that the author of this text
was familiar with the region. If he is as educated as his writing
indicates, then he was probably a very finely trained rhetorician
and valued accuracy.
I never said St Luke was lying, so don't set up some straw man
to knock him down and feel all important. I believe that St Luke
believed everything he wrote. That doesn't mean that everything
he wrote is believable or even accurate.
Nemesio