Originally posted by Darfius
No, Luke was not an eyewitness. However, he was a good friend of Paul's, who was an Apostle.
This is not Biblical. This is Traditional. There is NO evidence for
this whatsoever.
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?)
Most Biblical scholars date St Luke at 55 years after Jesus' death,
around 85 CE. Maybe you should stand to do some checking yourself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioDid I say they were all verifiable for today? No. They were all verifiable to the people who heard the gospel from the Apostles. And archeology has found some of them, which gives us more reason to accept the rest, rather than deny them.
Um. Every person? Could you give me an archeological
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 'ev ...[text shortened]... wrote. That doesn't mean that everything
he wrote is believable or even accurate.
Nemesio
Why would Luke, a lucid and intelligent physician, not check out the evidence? Does that really make sense, objectively?
Originally posted by DarfiusCite a source where it says that Luke travelled to Jesus' tomb and looked in to see there was no body. You are once more projecting what you believe somebody would do in place of what the evidence says they did. This is irrational.
Did I say they were all verifiable for today? No. They were all verifiable to the people who heard the gospel from the Apostles. And archeology has found some of them, which gives us more reason to accept the rest, rather than deny them. ...[text shortened]... check out the evidence? Does that really make sense, objectively?
Originally posted by Darfius
Oh, so instead of producing Jesus' body, the Romans would have rather had to hunt and kill Christians? Seems like a waste of resources.
Jesus was one of thousands crucified under Pilate. They didn't
keep records for all the people they deemed infidels. They
hung 'em up and intimidated the rest of the people.
And, there is no reason to believe that Pilate 'guarded' the
tomb of Jesus (except that the Gospels say so); there were
many claimants to being the Messiah, the Son of God, God
Himself, and so on, the sentries would be on duty guarding
bodies all the time. That would be a waste of resources.
Indeed, if Gospel writers wanted to give their claim credibility,
they will tell the story (45 years after the event) with guards
around the tomb so that Jesus's body couldn't be stolen.
Yes, St Luke edits St Mark to give the story more credibility;
St Mark has no body, but no Resurrected Christ either (remember,
St Mark ends at 16:8). St Luke builds upon that. Who is going
to challenge St Luke? Everyone is dead or has forgotten whether
there was one or two or no guards at the tomb by the time that
St Luke's verision is circulating.
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?
You need to review your Bible before you start making claims.
They did NOT start preaching the day after he died. Doesn't your
sect of Christianity know what Pentecost is? Weren't you just
talking about St Luke in another post?
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat do you define as few? Scholars say there were tens of thousands of converts within a decade. If the sect was so small and non-threatening, why were the Romans actively persecuting and killing them? You're backing yourself into a corner instead of being objective.
Maybe 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?
Originally posted by Darfius
Did I say they were all verifiable for today? No. They were all verifiable to the people who heard the gospel from the Apostles. And archeology has found some of them, which gives us more reason to accept the rest, rather than deny them.
By 'some' you mean what? A boat to prove that people did
fishing at the Sea of Galilee? That there are olive trees in
modern day Jerusalem? That Pontius Pilate existed?
These things aren't in dispute.
There is no evidence of Resurrection, which is the chief tenet
of Christian faith, outside of the Bible. There is no evidence
of anything fantastical in the Christian Scripture.
Why would Luke, a lucid and intelligent physician, not check out the evidence? Does that really make sense, objectively?
There is no evidence to suggest that he was a physician; that
myth is part of Christian tradition.
St Luke himself admits that he was relying on eyewitness
testimony; he never claims to have checked things out. You
are imposing an assumption which has no basis in Biblical fact.
I'll tell you what doesn't make sense: we have archeological
evidence to demonstrate that Herod was King until he died in
March of 4 BCE; according to St Matthew 2:1, Jesus was born
before this time. We also have archeological evidence that states
that the census that occurred when Jesus was born (under Quirinius
cf St Luke 2:2) occurred in the winter of either late 6 or early 7 CE.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioFine, after Pentecaust, you still didn't address the question. If everyone knew where the tomb was, then you're telling me no one felt obligated to see for themselves or produce the body?
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Oh, so instead of producing Jesus' body, the Romans would have rather had to hunt and kill Christians? Seems like a waste of resources.
Jesus was one of thousands crucified under Pilate. They didn't
keep records for all the people they deemed infidels. They
hung 'em up and intimidated the rest of the peo ...[text shortened]... y know what Pentecost is? Weren't you just
talking about St Luke in another post?
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by DarfiusI wish you would stop making generalizations like "scholars say". Cite a source like most people in this thread do. You're being ridiculous; "backing myself in a corner" how melodramatic! What was the population of Judea in 30 BC? Of Syria? Of Greece? Of Africa? Or Rome itself? You claimed the Apostles preached in all these places, yet the Christians remained a tiny sect. I can't speak for how actively the Romans persecuted Christians; we pretty much only have Christian texts to support that there was much persecution - again no Roman mentions Jesus or Christianity until 110 AD. The facts remain that Christianity was a small, fairly unimportant sect in the First century; do you seriously assert otherwise?
What do you define as few? Scholars say there were tens of thousands of converts within a decade. If the sect was so small and non-threatening, why were the Romans actively persecuting and killing them? You're backing yourself into a corner instead of being objective.
Originally posted by Nemesiohttp://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19897&page=12
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]Did I say they were all verifiable for today? No. They were all verifiable to the people who heard the gospel from the Apostles. And archeology has found some of them, which gives us more reason to accept the rest, rather than deny them.
By 'some' you mean what? A boat to prove that people did
fishing at ...[text shortened]... der Quirinius
cf St Luke 2:2) occurred in the winter of either late 6 or early 7 CE.
Nemesio[/b]
Read the whole thing, please. I address Quirinius.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, because you aren't citing sources, either. And I see no reason to doubt Christian sources, now do I? Especially when a major belief of Christians is not to lie.
I wish you would stop making generalizations like "scholars say". Cite a source like most people in this thread do. You're being ridiculous; "backing myself in a corner" how melodramatic! What was the population of Judea in 30 BC? Of Syria? Of Greece? Of Africa? Or Rome itself? You claimed the Apostles preached in all these places, yet the ...[text shortened]... ty was a small, fairly unimportant sect in the First century; do you seriously assert otherwise?
Originally posted by DarfiusYes, you write:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19897&page=12
Read the whole thing, please. I address Quirinius.
2. All of the gospels, especially Luke--a very meticulous historian and doctor--include very specific details, ranging from who was governor during the time of Jesus' birth to who's tomb He was buried in!
As I said, the archeological evidence says that the census taken during
Quirinius's reign happened ten years after archeological evidence says
Herod died.
Was Jesus an infant for 10 years?
Nemesio
P.S., Your whole account is riddled with mistakes. It would take me forever to
correct all of them. Much of the information in there bears no relation to the
vast majority of Biblical scholarship.
Originally posted by Darfius
And I see no reason to doubt Christian sources, now do I? Especially when a major belief of Christians is not to lie.
First of all, the Christian sources have the most to lose if they
aren't true. This should make you immediately skeptical.
Second of all, it is not a major belief of Christians 'not to lie.'
It is a major belief of Jews and Christians 'not to bear false
witness.' These are very, very different things socially.
Third of all, 'creative editing' was not considered lying. It was
part of Hebraic tradition (remember that Jesus and gang were
Jews). Midrash was a way of coming to theological understanding.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI address Quirinius specifically. Which is why I asked you to read the whole thing.
Yes, you write:
2. All of the gospels, especially Luke--a very meticulous historian and doctor--include very specific details, ranging from who was governor during the time of Jesus' birth to who's tomb He was buried in!
As I said, the [b]archeological evidence says that the census taken during
Quirinius's reign happened ten years after ...[text shortened]... uch of the information in there bears no relation to the
vast majority of Biblical scholarship.[/b]
Originally posted by DarfiusIf all you're relying on is Christian sources, then you are being untruthful when you say things like "scholars agree", aren't you? That means that your violating your own belief system by lying. I cite sources when I make a factual assertion; I don't just say "everybody agrees" - in fact when you mistakenly seemed to believed that Luke had seen the wedding feast miracle, I cited a source: the Bible!
Yes, because you aren't citing sources, either. And I see no reason to doubt Christian sources, now do I? Especially when a major belief of Christians is not to lie.
Originally posted by NemesioIf Christian sources were lying, what would be the point of lying? To give hope to others while they themselves had none?
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]And I see no reason to doubt Christian sources, now do I? Especially when a major belief of Christians is not to lie.
First of all, the Christian sources have the most to lose if they
aren't true. This should make you immediately skeptical.
Second of all, it is not a major belief of Christians 'not to l ...[text shortened]... esus and gang were
Jews). Midrash was a way of coming to theological understanding.
Nemesio[/b]
Explain to me the difference between not lying and not bearing false witness. Don't just say they are different.