• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Luke the careful historian tells it like it is

Audie

Veteran Member
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

Are you sure? I thought "faith" was evidence
of no facts. :D
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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.

What undeniable evidence? Opinion is not evidence.

A geniology? It is challenged by dna and dna does not lie

How it works? Selectively compile a book by committee to subdue the unwashed masses some 350 years of so after events and voila,a nes testament.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Are you sure? I thought "faith" was evidence
of no facts. :D

Absolutely sure, the only verifiable fact in there was that i have seen jesus's dads tomb.

tiberius-julius-abdes-pantera14.jpg
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

I have given three already, so here are three more. We can go on like this for a long time........

The following verses that Luke got the story quite wrong, whereas Matthew got it right. Luke thought that the Baptist was aggressive to the people, the multitudes, whereas Matthew knew that the Baptist was angry with the Priesthood for their greed, corrupt practices and hypocrisy.

Luke {3:7} Then said he to the multitude that came forth
to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath
warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew {3:7} But when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O
generation of vipers,

You see?

----------------------------------------------------------

And another.........................

Now, was Joseph the son of Heli, or of Jacob?

Luke {3:23} And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
which was [the son] of Heli,

Matthew {1:16} And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,

----------------------------------------------------------

And another................................

There was no way that Rome would require the people of the Empire to travel to their family homes for registration. Rome just was not that crazy.

Joseph was a Galilean handworker of the peasant classes.

The Census only included three provinces previously governed by Herod Archelaus, that incompetent retired and send to Gaul. The first Roman Prefect was instructed (through Syrian Legate Cyrenius) to hold a census for Idumea, Judea and Samaria. Gaslilee was not involved, and Galileans paid their provincial taxes to Herod Antipas's publicans.

Luke:
{2:1} And it came to pass in those days, that there went
out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed. {2:2} ([And] this taxing was first made
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) {2:3} And all went
to be taxed, every one into his own city. {2:4} And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)


This can go on for a long time.......
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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?
I wasn't referring to the enemies of today, I was speaking of the first and second century Jewish enemies, who had access to Luke's writings.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What undeniable evidence? Opinion is not evidence.

A geniology? It is challenged by dna and dna does not lie

How it works? Selectively compile a book by committee to subdue the unwashed masses some 350 years of so after events and voila,a nes testament.
DNA does not speak. Have you heard it say anything?
Interpretation of algorithms are not the words of inanimate materials. So of course opinion is not evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
DNA does not speak. Have you heard it say anything?
Interpretation of algorithms are not the words of inanimate materials. So of course opinion is not evidence.
When there is only one working interpretation of the evidence one can say that it "speaks". There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is largely due to the cowardice and incompetence of creation "scientists".
 

Audie

Veteran Member
When there is only one working interpretation of the evidence one can say that it "speaks". There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is largely due to the cowardice and incompetence of creation "scientists".

Nonsense. It is entirely due to the fact that there is
no evidence to be found.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
DNA does not speak. Have you heard it say anything?
Interpretation of algorithms are not the words of inanimate materials. So of course opinion is not evidence.

I never said it speaks, i said it doesn't lie ask any inmate convicted on dna evidence.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

Luke {4:1} And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned
from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Mark Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
{1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw
the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending
upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven,
[saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased. {1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness.

Well? Did Jesus go home first as per Luke,, or straight in to the wilderness as per Mark? :shrug:

----------------------------------

Now...... who got it right? Luke says that the Temple incident described below happened before Jesus met with Cephas, but Mark says that he had already met with Cephas.. :shrug:

Luke {4:31} And came down to Capernaum, a city
of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. {4:32}
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was
with power.
{4:33} And in the synagogue there was a man, which had
a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
{4:34} Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do with
thee, [thou] Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us?

Luke {5:10} And so [was] also James, and John, the sons of
Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said
unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
{5:11} And when they had brought their ships to land, they
forsook all, and followed him.

Mark: {1:16} Now as he walked by the
sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother
casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. {1:17} And
Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make
you to become fishers of men.

Mark {1:23} And there was
in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he
cried out, {1:24} Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do
with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy
us? I know thee who thou art,


This can go on....... Luke a good historian? Nah!

But Mark probably was.........
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I have given three already, so here are three more. We can go on like this for a long time........

The following verses that Luke got the story quite wrong, whereas Matthew got it right. Luke thought that the Baptist was aggressive to the people, the multitudes, whereas Matthew knew that the Baptist was angry with the Priesthood for their greed, corrupt practices and hypocrisy.

Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth
to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath
warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O
generation of vipers,

You see?

Luke 3:7
He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

mul·ti·tude
/ˈməltəˌt(y)o͞od/
noun
a large number.
"a multitude of medical conditions are due to being overweight"
synonyms: a lot, a great/large number, a great/large quantity, host, horde, mass, mountain, droves, swarm, army, legion, sea, abundance, profusion; More
large numbers of people.
"the multitudes using the roads"
a large gathering of people.
noun: the multitude
"Father Peter addressed the multitude"

man·y
/ˈmenē/
determiner, pronoun, & adjective
1.
a large number of.
"many people agreed with her"
synonyms: numerous, a great/good deal of, a lot of, a large/great number of, great quantities of, plenty of, countless, innumerable, scores of, crowds of, droves of, an army of, a horde of, a multitude of, a multiplicity of, multitudinous, numberless, multiple, untold;

Yes, I see.
I see that this is another one of those time-wasting exercises.
I'm sorry, whenever these come up, and I look at them, and the first one is so ridiculous as to cause me to hurt my sides, I don't bother with the rest
Seriously they cause me great boredom.
We have a name for those - time-wasting distractions.

That's why I said give me your best.
I'll oblige you this time though, because you didn't give me a multitude. Wait sorry, I mean you didn't give me many. Or should I say multitude... :confused:

Obviously the multitudes Luke mentioned were of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Whereas Luke did not specifically identify them, but Matthew did.
However, John's denouncing them should be enough for us to realize that they were the religious leaders... even if we did not have Matthew's account.

And another.........................

Now, was Joseph the son of Heli, or of Jacob?

Luke {3:23} And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
which was [the son] of Heli,

Matthew {1:16} And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,

Really? Seriously? This is a strong one?
Like I said, it's only because you gave me three, that I am even going to consider this.
'Sigh'

I could just imagine how Jesus felt.
(Mark 8:11, 12) . . .Here the Pharisees came out and started disputing with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to put him to the test. So he groaned deeply with his spirit,. . .

I think this should make it easier for you, and me.
Joseph is a son of Heli, by law.
If you need more on that, see here.


And another................................

There was no way that Rome would require the people of the Empire to travel to their family homes for registration. Rome just was not that crazy.

Joseph was a Galilean handworker of the peasant classes.

The Census only included three provinces previously governed by Herod Archelaus, that incompetent retired and send to Gaul. The first Roman Prefect was instructed (through Syrian Legate Cyrenius) to hold a census for Idumea, Judea and Samaria. Gaslilee was not involved, and Galileans paid their provincial taxes to Herod Antipas's publicans.

Luke:
{2:1} And it came to pass in those days, that there went
out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed. {2:2} ([And] this taxing was first made
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) {2:3} And all went
to be taxed, every one into his own city. {2:4} And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)


This can go on for a long time.......
I dealt with that here... and here.
Any objections, it would be best to respond on that thread, I think.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
When there is only one working interpretation of the evidence one can say that it "speaks". There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is largely due to the cowardice and incompetence of creation "scientists".
I guess that explains why they are always listening to babbling.
*Oh, This is true.
Oh wait. Not. This one is true.
Oops sorry, this one... no wait, that one. No this...thaNoWaiTha:confused:"

Humans related to orangutans, not chimps

Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends.

Creationism Science? What that?
Since when is science anything in the world, by which we gain truth.
It never can achieve that can it? However, that's not the title of this thread, so you and your sidekicks are not going to get me sidetracked from the OP.
Try that usual stuff with someone else.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Luke {4:1} And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned
from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Mark Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
{1:10} And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw
the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending
upon him: {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven,
[saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased. {1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness.

Well? Did Jesus go home first as per Luke,, or straight in to the wilderness as per Mark? :shrug:

----------------------------------

Now...... who got it right? Luke says that the Temple incident described below happened before Jesus met with Cephas, but Mark says that he had already met with Cephas.. :shrug:

Luke {4:31} And came down to Capernaum, a city
of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. {4:32}
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was
with power.
{4:33} And in the synagogue there was a man, which had
a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
{4:34} Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do with
thee, [thou] Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us?

Luke {5:10} And so [was] also James, and John, the sons of
Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said
unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
{5:11} And when they had brought their ships to land, they
forsook all, and followed him.

Mark: {1:16} Now as he walked by the
sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother
casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. {1:17} And
Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make
you to become fishers of men.

Mark {1:23} And there was
in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he
cried out, {1:24} Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do
with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy
us? I know thee who thou art,


This can go on....... Luke a good historian? Nah!

But Mark probably was.........
One. O n e. You get your final shot at one. So give me your best one.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Valid? Really. How does magic
have a sound basis in logic or fact?
Do you never experience the magic of Christmastime, or a sunset, or a beautiful night sky? Do you not ever use such language, or experience what such poetic language points to?

I rest my case. :)

How is it reasonable or cogent?
It's not. And that's what makes it magical. :) It's not the technical explanation of what makes a rainbow what it is, that makes it magical, you know.... I believe its Beauty is. Science does not tell us about Beauty. Our hearts do.

I dont think you know what the word
"valid" even means.
Of course you know I'm a fairly smart person, yet you question me at this level? ;) Yes, it is valid to view life metaphorically, to see it as magical without technical details as to the molecular structures of the thing that inspires you. Yes, it is valid to see life beyond science. A thousands times yes it is valid.

Maybe you feel that any way that you choose to
see or think about something is equally valuable,
or worthwhile?
Yes. There is a great value in seeing the world from more than one perspective. I find a mono-perspectival view of reality to be, well, utterly limiting.

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.
I'm a little surprised at your lack of imagination when you enter into discussions with me. Yet in the end, you know I'm right. :)

To explain the technical reasons why what I just said is correct, is very simple. If someone has a view of the world that everything happens via spirits "poofing" things into existence, and that constitutes the way they see the world operates, no amount of scientific, cause and effect analysis will be able to be registered mentally by someone whose system does not allow for it.

Our language creates boundaries of what it considers real and not real, and to a primitive seeing a flashlight, that is the power of a god. And once convinced of that, it takes a great deal for them to think outside that framework to see another perspective, basically learning a whole different type of framework, in order for them attempt to translate that experience into their framework. For the most part, it just doesn't register as "natural" to them, because such a thing does not exist in their worlds.

People literally live inside mentally constructed realities, in how they translate their experiences. Everyone of us do. And most everyone of us, assumes that what the world is to them, is what the world actually is. Very few burst that bubble.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Luke, the careful historian? Really? The one who got the Census wrong? The one who says the Tiberius issued a decree that all the world should be taxed?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I guess that explains why they are always listening to babbling.
*Oh, This is true.
Oh wait. Not. This one is true.
Oops sorry, this one... no wait, that one. No this...thaNoWaiTha:confused:"

Humans related to orangutans, not chimps

Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends.

Creationism Science? What that?
Since when is science anything in the world, by which we gain truth.
It never can achieve that can it? However, that's not the title of this thread, so you and your sidekicks are not going to get me sidetracked from the OP.
Try that usual stuff with someone else.
Using articles that you do not understand only tells us that you are confused and do not appear to want to learn.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ya been around creos too much its a rubbin'
off on ya. Ya swab.
I was just pointing out that your claim was essentially the same as mine, along with a dig at British pronunciation inconsistency.

I know that there is no evidence to be found for creationism, but creationists can not find it even if it existed due to their fear of the scientific method. I know it almost certainly will not happen, but I am hoping some creationist somewhere tries to use the scientific method in his or her research.
 

user4578

Member
This can go on....... Luke a good historian? Nah!
Luke may jump around in the narrative a bit, but he also gives information not found in the other synoptic gospels, for example the parable of the debtor(Luke 7:39-43), of the good Samaritan(Luke 10:30-36), of the loaves(Luke 11:5-8), of the rich man(Luke 12:16-21), of the fruit tree(Luke 13:6-9), of the sheep(Luke 15:3-7, cmp. Mat 18:12-13), of the wayward son(Luke 15:11-32), of silver(Luke 15:8-10), of the steward(Luke 16:1-8), of Lazarus(Luke 16:19-31), of the unjust judge(Luke 18:1-8), of the sinner(Luke 18:9-14). He follows the format of Mark in many places, but in some, Matthew; in one place also I believe he gives the correct outline of events not detailed in the others, namely the end of Luke chapter 13. Besides this, there are many other details he adds to the other synoptic gospels(Luke 12:6, Luke 12:13, Luke 13:31, etc.). Further, I am not necessarily of the opinion that it was Luke's intent to get the narrative perfectly chronological in every place, because in several instances he may be using a semantic approach, combining elements of similar subjects together though they may be months apart.
 
Last edited:
Top