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.
> 
Kirk writes:
	I have given historical reference to you non-historical thoughts. I have reasoned through you muddled thoughts to determine that again you are going to believe what brother Tim wants to believe.

> 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.
> 
Kirk writes:
	After INTENSE studies and schooling, that was one of many reference that I have. I do GIVE weight to history, and the facts that surround it. You can go to the GREEK all you want, you can twist scripture all you want. What you cannot twist is the reasoned facts of sound thought. 

> 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
> 
Kirk writes again:
	A detailed examination... He was a Doctor.... Lets not get bogged down in you reasoning. Lets look at the historical facts. History records that Luke was a Doctor.


> 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.
> 
Kirk Writes:
	In you wildest dreams. There is much historical evidence that supports the above statement, and whether you want to accept it or not, is your problem. I will not even go there with you.


> 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.  ;-)
> 
Kirk Writes:
	Luke out lived Paul, as the fact that he finished the book of Acts. 

> 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.
> 
Kirk writes: 
	I have not said that he was a eye witness. He set about to put the rumors to rest and establish the facts from those that were eyewitness....

> 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".
> 
Kirk writes:
	He was not an eyewitness, that is why he went about to set in order all that was being said. 


> 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.
> 
Kirk Writes:
	I gave the author, write him....


> 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...
> 
Kirk Writes:
	There was probably plenty of written material around, and that is why they probably started to write themselves. To make sure that there was recorded history. I do not believe that they sat down and started to write the minute the Holy Ghost fill. The dating of the writings does not even suggest it. If you want to believe that they took a couple of years to write before preaching the word.... Then be my guess, if my memory serves me right, there was a lull in the growth of the church at or around 55 - 65 AD, then a major lull after the destruction of Jerusalem. Which historians see a starting to gain a new momentum around 80 AD.

> 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.
> 
Kirk Writes:
	You common attack tactics are starting to show through again.....


> 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?
> 
Kirk writes:
	Discard what you want. I do not have to bother with this conversation after this post.

> 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...
> 
Kirk writes:
	The unreasoned opinion, of a unreasoned man.

> 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.
> 
Kirk writes:
	Look at above statement.


> 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.  ;->

Kirk writes:
	hmmmm You got one thing right so far.... Maybe there is hope.

> 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.
> 
Kirk Writes:
	That theory have been around the block, and "most" historians discount it. Though you can find some that will try to support it. You can also find people that believe Elvis is alive also....


> 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.
> 
> 
I could go on and on... enough said.... Like I said and have said, you like to argue. I do not have time to argue with folks that have not a shred of fact and depend on their complete though process to reason. You have been on this list for a long time and the archives are full of fights that have been started by you or others contending with you. At this point any more posts from you on this subject that does not have historical references will be discarded... Sorry Bro.. love ya... but support your facts and stop insulting those that you do not agree with.....

Love ya
Kirk Moore
CDG analyst II
DCAC/MRM Support

"Black holes are created when God divides by zero"