The Circle Dance: Trotting Out Tired Old Timothy ... (tradition, Epistles)

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by AV1611

He didn't have to. He had plenty of documentation in front of him to sort out (Luke 1:1-2), and God superintended the whole thing.

Documentation?
Luke 1:1-2 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Couldn't that mean the accounts were orally handed down? If there were already written documents why weren't they included? Why did Luke have to write his book?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Maize

Documentation?
Luke 1:1-2 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Couldn't that mean the accounts were orally handed down? If there were already written documents why weren't they included? Why did Luke have to write his book?

Because they were not 'inspired' documents. God conscripted Luke to sift through these documents and filter out what was important, and what was not. Although most of the documents were true, per se, they weren't inspired by God to be written. As such, Luke was God's official writer.

Say someone writes a medical journal. Unless it's sanctioned by the American Medical Association, it's not going anywhere, no matter how accurate it is.

Luke also wrote to a specific individual (Theophilus - Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1).

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Because they were not 'inspired' documents. God conscripted Luke to sift through these documents and filter out what was important, and what was not. Although most of the documents were true, per se, they weren't inspired by God to be written. As such, Luke was God's official writer.

What documents? Luke 1:1-2 does not prove there were actual written documents that Luke took his account from.

[glasgowchick]

Originally Posted by Maize

Documentation?
Luke 1:1-2 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Couldn't that mean the accounts were orally handed down? If there were already written documents why weren't they included? Why did Luke have to write his book?

Hi Mazie, I have a footnote on the first 4 verses..According to my footnote it says, There was a lot of interest in Jesus, and many people had written first hand accounts about him, Luke may have used these accounts and all other available resources as material for an accurate and compleat account of Jesus life, teachings and ministry, Because truth was important to Luke, he relied heavily on eye witnesses accounts. Ok here are my thoughts on it. Luke had all this information in front of him which he checked thoroughly to make sure everything he had was truth, So why did he have to write a book ? Well as it says in verse 3 of Luke that It seemed fitting for him also having investigated everything carefully from the begining, to write it out for Theophilus, and his reason being was so that Theophilus may know the exact truth about the things he had been taught..Does that make any sense ?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by glasgowchick

There was a lot of interest in Jesus, and many people had written first hand accounts about him, ...

Really? Who were these "many people"? Where are these "first hand accounts"?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by AV1611

He didn't have to. He had plenty of documentation in front of him to sort out (Luke 1:1-2), and God superintended the whole thing.

So: 'the Bible was written by God because the Bible says so and we know that it's true because "God superintended the whole thing."' What was that word you suggested earlier? Oh, yes: "vapid".

[Fluffy]

Yes I fully agree with you on this one Deut. Belief in the Bible is a matter of faith and I do not believe there is any valid argument which one can use to back up a belief in it beyond the one you outline. I wouldn't call such an argument worthless by any means.... it holds a huge amount of worth... it is just very ineffective as a means of convincing people to convert to Christianity because it is not logically sound.

Christianity, like all other religions, is a religion of faith, myth, superstition and tradition. Why non-Christians should concern themselves with the arguments of Christians is beyond me. It would seem to me that our religions are our own. What is the point in debating the dogma of religions that are not our own? What business is it of ours what traditions and dogmas others cling to?

Well debating is fun for some of us. I'm not a Christian but I feel that some of the scripture holds a lot of importance to me. Furthermore Christianity can be studied in other ways, such as via anthropology. It is undeniable that Christianity has had a massive impact on modern and and historical times so to say that religion, especially Christianity, is merely personal is just totally factually incorrect.

Besides, how can one further one's own beliefs if he shuts off the beliefs of others?

First of all, it is a legitimate statement I made for the purpose of this debate and it's only stupid, because you don't agree with it.

Whilst I wouldn't call it stupid, my disagreement with it comes from the fact that I do not believe that death is a prerequisite, nor an indication, of the validity of a person's dying cause. I see no reason why they could simply just not be mistaken and just think they know the truth.

It was that it would be extremely far-fetched to hold the opinion that the apostles would have made up legends about Jesus, and then be killed for what they know to be lies...

Agreed. Yet this still does not show that the apostles were not simply decieved or crazy or randomly fanatical. Besides they could have just liked aspects of Jesus' teachings and not gone for the religious side of things. I would die for many a cause but that doesn't mean that I think the people who came up with that cause are the sons and daughters or God.

Furthermore, it fails to reconcile the many different religious beliefs that people have died for over the years.

No, Christians will say Jesus is the only Holy One with no sin.

From a Christian perspective, what other "Holy Ones" are there?

He didn't have to. He had plenty of documentation in front of him to sort out (Luke 1:1-2), and God superintended the whole thing.

Okay but Luke is the only source for this documentation, whatever its nature. Therefore, we have no way of confirming the validity of it. Believing that God confirmed the nature of the material is a circular argument which, I might add, seems to be what this thread is showing up to be invalid methods of debate for very good reasons.

[glasgowchick]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Really? Who were these "many people"? Where are these "first hand accounts"?

Deut, if I thought you were sincere, I would try and answer your question, some people are sincerly looking and searching for truth..However my faith comes from what I read to be true that which is written in Scripture...If you don't believe anything Luke has written in His Gospel then what chance do I have for you to believe anything I write...