Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

[Spartan]

You make the typical all of nothing errors of the literalist. Yes, the author of Luke,not Luke himself, got some basic ideas right. He also got some history terribly wrong.

You've never been able to prove it.

 

[Audie]

As have said in an earlier post, some minor characters mentioned in the bible existed, there is independent, corroborating evidence.

Any good book will use reality as a backdrop to lend more credibility to the story

Any con man will mix in enough good verifiable stuff
to make the story credible.

 

[Audie]

Luke is loaded wit specifics about real people which is the Hallmark of a careful historian

Pontius Pilate Luke 3 v 1; Luke 13 v 1, Luke 23 v 1, 3, etc
Herod the Great, Bernice Luke 1 v 5; Luke 25 v 13; Luke 26 v 30
Sergius Paulus Acts 13 v 7
Drusilla Acts 24 v 24
Gallio Acts 18 v 12
Annas Luke 3 v 2; Acts 4 v 6
Felix Acts 23 v 24; Acts 23 v 26
Caiaphas Luke 3 v 2; Acts 4 v 6
Festus Acts 24 v 27; Acts 25 v 1, etc.
Ananias Acts 23 v 2; Acts 24 v 1
King Herod Agrippa I Acts 12 v 1
Gamaliel Acts 5 v 34; Acts 22 v 3
King Herod Agrippa II Acts 25 v 13, Acts 25 v 26
Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee Luke 3 v 1

Not the stuff of Myths

FIRST OFF, "myth" does not mean
false. It may refer a made up story, or,
it may refer to a real history.

Keep your vocab straight before you
try to make a point that is already
made for you!

Meanwhile,you missed the fact that
the historical novel is an entire genre
based on using real people and events
as background.

The book of mormon is an example
of an historical novel.
So is the bible.

 

[Windwalker]

They do?

Of course they do. Science looks at nature and sees the mechanics of how it works. Religion looks at nature and sees the magic of all of it. It's two different ways of looking at the same thing, with each seeing a truth about that same thing. There are multiple ways of seeing the same thing, and all of them can be valid.

I get the feeling people say things, not because it's the truth, but they try to create a cage for others, while creating an escape hatch for themselves.
No intended offense to you, but this is my experience.

I don't think you are following what I am saying then. All people try to take what they see and experience and try to put it into boxes for themselves, in order to be able to process it and understand it using that particular set of eyes. It's not about trying to oppress others. It's about creating a useful way to look at the world for themselves which creates a degree of control over it for themselves, be they a religious or secular person. Everyone does this.

Could you explain how it is that you have a problem "when religious persons don't accept what science shows", when according to you,
"Being honest and sincere, does not mean that you can avoid seeing things that affirm your beliefs, and ignoring that which doesn't. Every person alive does this, be they religious or secular.
....People are conditioned to see things a certain way as they are part of a community of others."?

How is it that you can determine that "persons don't accept what science shows because it challenges how they believe about God."?

I determine that based on decades of experience with this, coupled with considerable research into these areas. You can have those who are religious who have no problem with accepting things like Evolution, and you have those who can't integrate that understanding into how they hold their beliefs as a religious person. The variable isn't religious thought. The variable is the manner or style in which they translate the world through that particular lens.

As an example, you can have a Christian who upon learning the science about how humans evolved from earlier forms of animal life, recoil in shock and view the science as false, or even evil, because in their way of looking at God and Creation, they read the story of Genesis as a competitive scientific explanation for how it happened, reading literal 24 hour creation days and man made literally from literal dust in a magical supernatural manner.

So because that is how God's creation is viewed in their minds, another way of understanding how that may have happened is not allowed. To them, to change how they read the book of Genesis is so tied to their belief in the reality of God, that to change that understanding threatens faith in God for them. So science denial becomes an act of self-preservation of faith for them.

Another Christian whose faith is not so tied to how they think about God, might take that same information taught to them about Evolution and see it rather as insight into how God created all of this. They look at the same stories in Genesis and see instead allegories and metaphors, ways of talking about something in symbolic terms which is way beyond the grasp of the average mind to comprehend. They read the Bible not as science and history, but as metaphors about the miracle of Creation. Evolution becomes seen as that miracle of God, not a threat to God.

Why is it not, people don't accept what science shows because - rather than quote you again, I'll summarize - it is biased?

"what it finds to be true about the world through it's particular lens"?
So you know that you are not being biased, and accepting it because it fits your worldview, and because you know they are not biased...

There are degrees to which that bias goes, from simply colorizing what we see, which is normal, down to the point it creates a point of tension against other possible points of view because it cannot tolerate other perspectives.

To try to explain the further, what we are talking about with all of this is simply perspectives. Everyone always naturally biases their way of looking at things to favor what suits them. They need it to make sense at some level or another, otherwise it's just chaos. But as people mature, they begin to learn that others can see the same things they are, yet come to different beliefs about it. When we are immature, this becomes a conflict for us where we need to prove the other person is wrong, because since we see it another way and that is what we believe, that has to be the right way of looking at it.

With some maturity we begin realize that our beliefs are colorized by our perspectives, in the same way we see how that is happening in others. This is a big step forward in maturity, as it relaxes one's own hold on their own views to allow the insights of others to help inform our own. It is the beginning of wisdom, because we no longer assume because we think a thing to be true, that it is because that is what is the truth of it and others are just simply mistaken. The result of this is we become more open minded to our own beliefs and ways of looking at things.

So to the question of why some cannot accept the perspective of science, especially in light of the rigors and mountainous supporting data and consistent findings, really comes down to simply not being able to process a perspective of the world that doesn't fit how they are doing it. It has nothing to do with the strength of the data, but the ability of not holding one's own beliefs so tightly that it cannot allow for another perspective to possibly illuminate their own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've never been able to prove it.

Of course I have. You simply ignore the evidence. You believe an unreasonable myth which causes you to use bad sources and to deny the work of experts in the field. Remember how I said that an apologetics site would be laughed at? Apologetics consists of lying for Jesus. It is an act of the weak in faith. They need a literal interpretation of the Bible even though a literal interpretation is clearly false.

 

[nPeace]

God know my heart darling does he know how you try to exclude and hate on folks through your fundy Christian religion? Wonder how he feels about the fact that you worship Jesus instead of him? Jesus himself said to pray to our Father who are in heaven.

"exclude and hate on folks through your fundy Christian religion"?
I take it this has nothing to do with anything I said in this thread, so I am interested to know what I said or did otherwise, to cause you to conclude that I "exclude and hate on folks".
I've never been accuse of such. To the contrary the opposite. So I'm interested to hear your viewpoint - not on this thread though... We don't want to ruin such an interesting thread.

I'd be glad to discuss it with you in a new thread, if you are willing. You can start it, or I can.
If you would prefer I start it, just give me a hint on what I should title it as.

 

[nPeace]

Then he blinds people and listens in on their private conversations while tricking them nice.

Surely you are not thinking that he stops up their eyes, or mind, but you probably know of people who has been "blinded by love". They are so in love, that they can't see the bad in the person, and no matter how many people warn them, and point out things to them, they just "can't see".
We both know, it's not that they can't see. It's that they don't want to see, because they want this individual - no matter what.

So think of it that way. People can't see what God is showing them, because they so want to live their life how they please. They are blinded by their own desires, and God lets them be.
Have you ever experienced a situation like that, where you are trying to show your 'love sick' girlfriend that the man is a two-time good-for-nothing, but she ain't paying you no mind.
After a while, did you not quit?

Later, when she gets trampled on, you just can't resist saying, "Told ya."

 

[Riders]

Luke is loaded wit specifics about real people which is the Hallmark of a careful historian

Pontius Pilate Luke 3 v 1; Luke 13 v 1, Luke 23 v 1, 3, etc
Herod the Great, Bernice Luke 1 v 5; Luke 25 v 13; Luke 26 v 30
Sergius Paulus Acts 13 v 7
Drusilla Acts 24 v 24
Gallio Acts 18 v 12
Annas Luke 3 v 2; Acts 4 v 6
Felix Acts 23 v 24; Acts 23 v 26
Caiaphas Luke 3 v 2; Acts 4 v 6
Festus Acts 24 v 27; Acts 25 v 1, etc.
Ananias Acts 23 v 2; Acts 24 v 1
King Herod Agrippa I Acts 12 v 1
Gamaliel Acts 5 v 34; Acts 22 v 3
King Herod Agrippa II Acts 25 v 13, Acts 25 v 26
Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee Luke 3 v 1

Not the stuff of Myths

So does Spiderman, so I guess Spiderman is real huh?

 

[Riders]

"exclude and hate on folks through your fundy Christian religion"?
I take it this has nothing to do with anything I said in this thread, so I am interested to know what I said or did otherwise, to cause you to conclude that I "exclude and hate on folks".
I've never been accuse of such. To the contrary the opposite. So I'm interested to hear your viewpoint - not on this thread though... We don't want to ruin such an interesting thread.

I'd be glad to discuss it with you in a new thread, if you are willing. You can start it, or I can.
If you would prefer I start it, just give me a hint on what I should title it as.

No thanks, I believe I pointed out your mistakes quite well. Thanks for the offer.

 

[Riders]

Surely you are not thinking that he stops up their eyes, or mind, but you probably know of people who has been "blinded by love". They are so in love, that they can't see the bad in the person, and no matter how many people warn them, and point out things to them, they just "can't see".
We both know, it's not that they can't see. It's that they don't want to see, because they want this individual - no matter what.

So think of it that way. People can't see what God is showing them, because they so want to live their life how they please. They are blinded by their own desires, and God lets them be.
Have you ever experienced a situation like that, where you are trying to show your 'love sick' girlfriend that the man is a two-time good-for-nothing, but she ain't paying you no mind.
After a while, did you not quit?

Later, when she gets trampled on, you just can't resist saying, "Told ya."

Uh but does it not say that God himself caused them to be blinded? Thats a mean thing to do for a God. I get what your saying.

 

[nPeace]

Hey, thanks for the clarity, it helps.
Yes, I looked at the vid and skimmed the links. I get that you might commonly hear people questioning primary versus secondary sourcing in relation to much of the Bible. I'm not, though.

I'm more interested in the assessment in the title that Luke was a historian...and still more, a 'careful' one. I realise it's not your title, but that's the claim I find strange. To be clear, that's not really related to religion at all.

There are many ways to define 'historian', and I'd grant that the most basic includes anyone who writes down anything. For me, these type of chroniclers are not historians. And certainly not 'careful' ones.

I think you'd need evidence around how Luke considered and discarded sources, as well as an understanding of any bias (indeed, declarations of bias), and ideally a body of work to show how these play out.

Again...this isn't a knock on Luke, particularly. There are almost NO ancient writers we could safely describe as historians even allowing some degree of flexibility in the definition. And 'careful'? At that point we just seem to be making things up based on our own desires.

It's true, I didn't make the title, but I believe it's possible to know if something is true from an unbiased perspective, and with an honest analysis.

historian
noun
an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon.
"a military historian"
synonyms: chronicler, annalist, archivist, recorder, biographer, historiographer, palaeographer, antiquarian, chronologist

I am very familiar with the term "student of the Bible" or "Bible student" - that is one who studies the Bible.
So it's obvious to me that a "student of history", is one who studies history - a "history student".

Was Luke a "student of history"
(Luke 1:3, 4) 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

So #1 - If we are honest, and unbiased, the answer seems to be unequivocally a resounding "Yes!"

#2 -
We see things like this...

The Cylinders of Nabonidus refers to cuneiform inscriptions of king Nabonidus of Babylonia (556-539 BC).
The Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar is a long text in which Nabonidus describes how he repaired three temples: the sanctuary of the moon god Sin in Harran, the sanctuary of the warrior goddess Anunitu in Sippar, and the temple of Šamaš in Sippar.

We accept it - no question. 'That history', we say.

We see things like this..

However, do we accept it? See Isaiah - Wikipedia

Yet, what to we generally find?
Nabonidus cylinders from Ur are also noteworthy because they mention a son named Belshazzar, who is mentioned in the Book of Daniel. The cylinders state:
"As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son -my offspring- instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude."

Here we find we can have two records, from different sources. In many details, those records agree, something with 99.9% precision. Something one leaves out what the other contains. Sometimes they are slight differences.

...and what do we do? We select this one.

...and what do we say? 'This one is myth, the other is true.'
... and on what basis?
___________________________________________________________

This is where we tell whether what you if you are in agreement with @Rival and @Windwalker (which seems to be the case) are saying - which I absolutely disagree with - is true or not.
Are all of us governed by bias - incapable of avoiding seeing things that affirm our beliefs, and ignoring that which doesn't?
That gets a resounding "No." However, it appears to me, there are people who want to pin that on religious people, saying out of one side of the same source, that they are not being biased against religious people - that it applies to all, yet out of the other side of the same source, you seem to hear them squirming their way out.
You probably won't understand why I am passionate about this, but there is a quality associated with this, that don't sit too well with me.
Actually there is more than one bad quality associated with it. but I'll leave that alone for now.

 

[nPeace]

No thanks, I believe I pointed out your mistakes quite well. Thanks for the offer.

I made no mistake.
You pointed out nothing.
You did well with the distraction though - a common tactic, but it only satisfies skeptics - no one else, honey.

 

[nPeace]

You want more examples to show that Luke included some glaring false testimonies in his gospel? I selected three from the first page or two.

Look......... if you believe in Luke's gospel, and have faith in it, that's fine, but this thread is showing that care is needed about what to keep and what to chuck out.

This is what happens when non-witnesses build a story from various anecdotes .... years after the event, and for the purpose of selling a faith.

More examples?
Yours apparently dropped through the cracks, so that would mean you are at zero examples. Did you see when they crumbled, or would you like me to point out those posts?

I'll settle for one, if you have any.
This thread is looking fine from where I am sitting. It's beating the opposition at every angle.

 

[nPeace]

Actually there is independent contemporary evidence that some minor mentions in the bible existed as do some of the places. There is no evidence that jesus existed as described in the bible. Or many of the main characters. If there were falsifiable evidence then you would not need faith to believe.

Feel free to get started

Fyi, i am fully aware of what i say so please do not imply that i am not or i may be tempted to put some of that evidence your way.

Fact : a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Not a thing that is believed to be true.

There is considerable evidence that the earth exists, people exist, other planets exist. What i believe in is reality.

"Some minor mentions"?
Sounds like an opinion to me.
The evidence that Jesus existed as described in the Bible, is actually being considered to some degree, in this thread - which I am not about to derail, in order to go off on a pointless debate.
There is evidence that he was a teacher, Messiah, and "Miracle worker".
Even his enemies did not deny these things. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

What else are you looking for? That he ascended to heaven? The scriptures say, only his followers saw that.
If we had proof of everything, you would not need faith either. Everyone has faith in something.

 

[nPeace]

Ah ha! So in Luke's clear and detailed account he didn't mention that she went on the Jordan route with relatives, etc?

Do you think that a pregnant girl (they married very young) could go wandering around Palestine during such a time? And where was Joseph at that time?

Can't you see the obvious manipulation in the story in silly attempts to relate a lone self-subsisting wanderer how despised the priesthood totally with the son of a Galilean handworker's Mum?

If you believe it, then ok, but this thread is about Luke's strange ideas........... and I have been kind.... I could fill this thread with examples.

We'll settle for your best. Just pick the best of the bunch.
If it holds up then you have a basis for your argument, otherwise, that and all the others are just fluff.

 

[nPeace]

As have said in an earlier post, some minor characters mentioned in the bible existed, there is independent, corroborating evidence.

Any good book will use reality as a backdrop to lend more credibility to the story

Ah. A good book with a genealogy that was not challenged by enemies of Jesus - a so called fraud, and his impersonating followers... How does that work?
It seems there is nothing skeptics would not say to deny undeniable evidence.

What do you know... they included myths in their good book, as well, and the opposing Jews let them be.

 

[nPeace]

Of course they do. Science looks at nature and sees the mechanics of how it works. Religion looks at nature and sees the magic of all of it. It's two different ways of looking at the same thing, with each seeing a truth about that same thing. There are multiple ways of seeing the same thing, and all of them can be valid.

How do I know that you are not conditioned to see things this way as they are part of a community of others?

I don't think you are following what I am saying then. All people try to take what they see and experience and try to put it into boxes for themselves, in order to be able to process it and understand it using that particular set of eyes. It's not about trying to oppress others. It's about creating a useful way to look at the world for themselves which creates a degree of control over it for themselves, be they a religious or secular person. Everyone does this.

I'm only getting more confused with this. It seems to suggest that no one is open-minded, which is not true.

I determine that based on decades of experience with this, coupled with considerable research into these areas. You can have those who are religious who have no problem with accepting things like Evolution, and you have those who can't integrate that understanding into how they hold their beliefs as a religious person. The variable isn't religious thought. The variable is the manner or style in which they translate the world through that particular lens.
So the ones who accept evolution are not conditioned, and the ones who don't are... How enlightening.

As an example, you can have a Christian who upon learning the science about how humans evolved from earlier forms of animal life, recoil in shock and view the science as false, or even evil, because in their way of looking at God and Creation, they read the story of Genesis as a competitive scientific explanation for how it happened, reading literal 24 hour creation days and man made literally from literal dust in a magical supernatural manner.

So because that is how God's creation is viewed in their minds, another way of understanding how that may have happened is not allowed. To them, to change how they read the book of Genesis is so tied to their belief in the reality of God, that to change that understanding threatens faith in God for them. So science denial becomes an act of self-preservation of faith for them.

Another Christian whose faith is not so tied to how they think about God, might take that same information taught to them about Evolution and see it rather as insight into how God created all of this. They look at the same stories in Genesis and see instead allegories and metaphors, ways of talking about something in symbolic terms which is way beyond the grasp of the average mind to comprehend. They read the Bible not as science and history, but as metaphors about the miracle of Creation. Evolution becomes seen as that miracle of God, not a threat to God.


There are degrees to which that bias goes, from simply colorizing what we see, which is normal, down to the point it creates a point of tension against other possible points of view because it cannot tolerate other perspectives.

To try to explain the further, what we are talking about with all of this is simply perspectives. Everyone always naturally biases their way of looking at things to favor what suits them. They need it to make sense at some level or another, otherwise it's just chaos. But as people mature, they begin to learn that others can see the same things they are, yet come to different beliefs about it. When we are immature, this becomes a conflict for us where we need to prove the other person is wrong, because since we see it another way and that is what we believe, that has to be the right way of looking at it.

With some maturity we begin realize that our beliefs are colorized by our perspectives, in the same way we see how that is happening in others. This is a big step forward in maturity, as it relaxes one's own hold on their own views to allow the insights of others to help inform our own. It is the beginning of wisdom, because we no longer assume because we think a thing to be true, that it is because that is what is the truth of it and others are just simply mistaken. The result of this is we become more open minded to our own beliefs and ways of looking at things.

So to the question of why some cannot accept the perspective of science, especially in light of the rigors and mountainous supporting data and consistent findings, really comes down to simply not being able to process a perspective of the world that doesn't fit how they are doing it. It has nothing to do with the strength of the data, but the ability of not holding one's own beliefs so tightly that it cannot allow for another perspective to possibly illuminate their own.

Sounds like I am hearing your worldview loudly. Therefore you must hear it as well. Hence, according to you, you can't avoid seeing things that affirm your beliefs.
Bear in mind that if you deny that, it's because you can't avoid seeing things that affirm your beliefs. You are conditioned to see things a certain way as they are part of a community of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. A good book with a genealogy that was not challenged by enemies of Jesus - a so called fraud, and his impersonating followers... How does that work?
It seems there is nothing skeptics would not say to deny undeniable evidence.

What do you know... they included myths in their good book, as well, and the opposing Jews let them be.

You do not appear to understand the nature of evidence. There is no "undeniable evidence" in the Bible. and very little supporting it. Also, making the errors of the Bible obvious does not make one an "enemy of Jesus". If anything by doing so you are declaring that Jesus is not real. Are you sure that you want to do this?

 

[ChristineM]

"Some minor mentions"?
Sounds like an opinion to me.
The evidence that Jesus existed as described in the Bible, is actually being considered to some degree, in this thread - which I am not about to derail, in order to go off on a pointless debate.
There is evidence that he was a teacher, Messiah, and "Miracle worker".
Even his enemies did not deny these things. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

What else are you looking for? That he ascended to heaven? The scriptures say, only his followers saw that.
If we had proof of everything, you would not need faith either. Everyone has faith in something.

There is precisely as much evidence that jesus was an anarchist, member of the sicarii and founding member of the fourth philosophy. And i have seen his dads grave stone... God, i think not.

I am not looking for anything, i am simp!y presenting an alternative view to yours which is at least as valid as yours.

Yes, faith, a wonderful thing, with faith you dont need proof, if you had proof then your faith would not be necessary. Faith is not evidence

 

[Audie]

Of course they do. Science looks at nature and sees the mechanics of how it works. Religion looks at nature and sees the magic of all of it. It's two different ways of looking at the same thing, with each seeing a truth about that same thing. There are multiple ways of seeing the same thing, and all of them can be valid.

Valid? Really. How does magic
have a sound basis in logic or fact?
How is it reasonable or cogent?

I dont think you know what the word
"valid" even means.

Maybe you feel that any way that you choose to
see or think about something is equally valuable,
or worthwhile?

This is good though-

process a perspective of the world that doesn't fit how they are doing it. It has nothing to do with the strength of the data,

Good analysis of how you can go right on believing there was
a flood. I am a little surprised at your insight.