History Lesson

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

BroKirk:
You seem to be content in your world of understanding and that is fine. When
more learned men state something totally contrary to your thinking, you
discard it.

Me:
That's prolly the most assinine thing I have heard from you in a while.  I
disregard garbage after INTENSE REASEARCH, MUCH DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE WHO
WILL LISTEN, MOST OF WHOM HAVE SOME CAPTIAL LETTERS BEHIND THEIR NAMES OR
ARE AMONG THE MOST PROMENENT ONENESS THEOLGIANS OF NON-UPC ORGANIZATIONS,
PRAYER AND WORDS FROM GOD.

If you don't believe that, that is YOUR problem.  I back everything I say up
with my entire thought processes.  I open myself up to attack because I
present even the flaws.  I do that on purpose to identify and *correct*
mistakes.  What is lacking in the so called rebuffs is the like kindness
from most of those who oppose my conclusions.

BroKirk:
The problem that folks have is determine who influenced who. Below is the
section of text from "The College Press NIV Commentary" Pg 142, 143

Me:
Nonsense.  The problem is, and I will show this below, that they cannot and
will not accept what is <listen good, Yall, this is crutial> written.  They,
like you are starting to do, SAY they believe the Bible and then
systematically attempt to disprove it's authority.  I posted that Luke used
two words that described HIS OWN ESTIMATION OF HIS ACCOUNT AS both complete
and FIRST HAND.  That is the simple clear meaning of the the two words.  You
have not addressed that.  My guess is that you will not...  I will not turn
to personal comments about your particualar brand of reasoning.  That was a
cheap shot old friend.

Let me now introduce another word Luke used to denote his experience:

autoptes {ow-top'-tace} 1) seeing with one's own eye, an eye-witness 1a) a
medical term: autopsy, a detailed examination


Someone:
Authorship and Date

The question of the authorship and date of the Gospel of Luke are in the
main handled below in chapter 6 on Acts. The same evidence that indicates
Luke wrote Acts also demonstrates that he wrote the third Gospel, for the
two works were clearly - as the prologues show - written by the same person.

Me:
Well, the books were written by the same person.  The date is the sheerest,
wildest conjecture.


Someone:
Since we conclude that Acts was written sometime between A.D. 62 and  64
(see Chapter 6), we should place Luke before 62, perhaps between 58 and 60
when Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea Maritima. Luke would have been close to
there to Palestinian oral sources on the life and words of Jesus and he
would have had the leisure to undertake such a project.

Me:
Doesn't matter when the book was written as long as it is of the same
general time frame.  Even if the books were wirtten in 64 A.D., the events
recorded could have gone back to an average life time before.  Luke could
have wirtten them at the age of say 50 and still been able to have followed
Jesus about.  Since the last years of Paul's life were prolly in prison or
in limited travel, Luke could have easily been in his 80s by 64 A.D.  That
would have made him older than Jesus.  ;-)

For the sake of argument, let's not attack the time issue just yet.  This
above only proves MY point.  The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were
written comtemporaniously with the events.  Therefore, Luke, by your own
admission could have been an eye witness.  Since we both agree that he was
ALIVE in the days of Jesus and Paul (or are you suggesting that he was born
after the death of Jesus????) then you must show some kind of evidence to
prove that he did not witness these events that he SAID he witnessed.

You have also missed a MAJOR point.  If you do prove this, then you MUST
disregard ALL that was written by Luke.  If Luke said he was an eyewitness
and Luke was NOT an eyewitness:  Luke was a liar.  As a liar, you cannot
then trust any of his "testimony".


Someone:
Mark is dated at AD 45 to have been written

Me:
Who says so and upon what EVIDENCE do they base this?  That is the issue.  I
don't do like most of Y'all.  I don't give two BEANS about a man's
reputation.  I dig into the EVIDENCE.  If the evidence supports the man's
conclusions, I accept them, if it does not, I reject them.  If I can then
obtain clarification from the man himself, as I have done with Blume,
Bernard and others, I then try to point out the inconsistencies.

Someone:
and Matthew after that in lets say A.D. 50 - 55.

Me:
So we are to assume that these people sat around for 15 to 20 years before
anyone thought, "Hey, we could write this stuff down!"  <round of applause
with much back slapping>  You don't find that a little hard to swallow???
The most EARTH SHAKING news in all recorded history and it didn't occur to
anyone to wite it down for 15 or 20 YEARS...

These guys are already starting to sound quite "learned" to me...

BroKirk:
There  are some that have dates Matthew out around AD
80-100 supposing that Jesus could not have predicted the destruction at
Jerusalem. Though that crumbles at the weight of evidence.

Me:
Not if you, like those who make such assertions, begin with the *assumption*
that Jesus was just a man.  Once you deny the Deity of Jesus, you then
construct the framework of a group of devotes to the legend who lied and
said that the predictions came before the event when in fact they sat after
the event and *inserted* them into the text.  These are the "facts" that the
theorums you quote above are based upon.


You:
Quoting New Testament Survey by Merrill C. Tenney:

Me:
OK, who is this guy and why should I, or anyone else for that matter, think
he knows what he is talking about?  Has he repented of his sins?  Is he
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of these sins.  Did
he get this revelation in front of thousands of people from God with signs
and wonders?  Was he there when these events happened?

Someone:
pg 163 4th para
The close accord of Mark with Matthew and Luke, in which the Gospels most of
the material in Mark can be found, has lead many to believe that Matthew and
Luke used Mark as a source of information and that the written document must
have antedated the other two Gospels.

Me:
Are these the same guys that look at a monkey and then at a human being and
based SOLEY on the fact that they are similar, yet one is more advanced in
design, come to the conclusion that the more complex CAME from the less
complex?  Only they were is reverse that day, huh?  Seems to ME that the
most likely conclusion is that they all SAW the same thing and wrote about
it to different people for different purposes with different emphasis on
details due to different personalities...

Someone:
Such a conclusion would compel one to believe either Mark was early, or that
the others were late.

Me:
Nonsense.  Why not that the two more "primative" works were first, then
Mark, to add more detail, and then Luke to make the story complete?  What is
this "compulsion" mentioned above???  Why not that they were all written of
the same day and due to the difference of the knowledge of the particulay
audience, each author only wrote the detail he though necessary.

Again quoting:
Quoting New Testament Survey by Merrill C. Tenney:  pg 173, Chapter 10
Of the Three Synoptic Gospels Luke affords the greatest amount of
information concerning its own beginning. Its author, who does not give his
own name, supplied a literary introduction stating his aims in writing it,
the methods that he employed, and his relationships to his contemporaries
who had attempted the same thing.

Me:
The word "contemporaries" means those of the same time.  ;->

Someone:
This introduction (Luke 1:1-4) is the key to the book, and to the book of
Acts also, if Luke-Acts is regarded as a unit.

Me:
Ah, cool!  The thing that escapes most.  The probability that the book of
Luke and the book of Acts were written as a *single* work...

Luke states catagorically that he was with Paul.  Paul verifies the same in
independent letters.  Luke also said as I proved that he had "complete
knowledge as attained by being at the very side of" all the things he wrote
of Jesus.  That is either ALL true, or it is ALL false.  If it is false, you
must remove the book of Luke from the Bible and the book of Acts.


Someone:
>From the introduction a number of inferences may be drawn:
    1) In the time of the writer a number of works were extant that
contained only a partial, or possibly a garbled account of Jesus' life and
work. The author would not have written a Gospel of his own had he been
perfectly satisfied with any of those that he knew.

Me:
See, this is EXACTLY what I was on about.  Why does there have to be any
*mystery*.  Why not just READ what Luke wrote:

Luke 1
4 That *thou* mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast
been instructed.

He wrote this to his friend to CONFIRM that all that he has *already* read
in the many other accounts (is three, many? ;-) that Theophilus (is that a
Greek name?  Hmmm...  wonder what language he would have used to write to a
Greek?  ;-) had access to.

Why ASSUME that these *many* other works were garbled?  That is sheer
specualtion.  As for any complete work of the life and times of the man
Jesus:

John 21
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they
should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not
contain the books that should be written. Amen.

What library would you keep it in?  ;-)

Someone:
5) His information came from competent official sources ("who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" -- 1:2).

Me:
Nope.  The phrase he uses is "US/eyewitnesses".  ;-)

Someone:
    6) He was conversant with the facts, either by observation

Me:
Hmmm...  Seems I have heard that one somewhere before.  ;->

Someone:
or by inquiry,

Me:
Meaning that he didn't personally lay eyes on EVERY event, like the fiasco
that resulted from Paul's diobedience when he went to Jerusalem and was
mobbed in the Temple.  Luke couldn't have actually seen that.

Someone:
and he was certainly a contemporary of the main course of action in
the sense that he lived in the generation of those who had witnessed it.

Me:
Well, yeah, seeing as Luke said he was an EYEWITNESS...


SomeoneAgain:
The term translated "having traced the course of all things" is the same as
the
one used in II Timothy 3:10-11, where Paul said that Timothy has "followed"
his "teaching, conduct. . .  what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium,
at Lystra." The language does not imply that Timothy was present with Paul
at every occasion in those cities,

Me:
???  Why doesn't it?

BroKirk:
So taking everything into account, I would  say that Like was not there with
Jesus,

Me:
Then you'd better dig out your sissors, Luke and the man you quote above say
he was.  ;->

You:
and that he was trying to put into "perfect" order those things that
he heard.

Me:
Well, yeah, those things he says that he heard and SAW...

You:
There are several copies of other Gospels around. There is the
Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, which reputes to be the earliest story on
the life of Jesus. It has him studying mysticism and traveling to Babylon to
learn at the hands of the great masters of his time.

Me:
And what exactly did God manifested in flesh LEARN from these mortals???


You:
So as you can see there is still a lot of debate as to who wrote what first
and when.

Me:
Yes, <weary sigh> much, much debate...

You:
I tend to stay up on history, since it was my first major in college.

Me:
History is the projecting backwards of the world view of those who are
articulate enough to convince the monied that they can tell them a great
story that will justify their world view.  ;-)

A prime example is the common drill of holding up a little figure of a deer
or a bear and saying it has some "religious significance" when the most
likely explanation is that it is a "toy" some father carved for a baby on a
long winter night...  ;->



________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet.  Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html