• 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

nPeace

Veteran Member
Using articles that you do not understand only tells us that you are confused and do not appear to want to learn.
You never fail do you... You repeat the same note, every time... like clockwork.
When will you ever learn that you are not the only one who can read and understand?
First, understand why someone posts something, instead of assuming what you don't know.
Second, take a lesson from your own instructions - If you don't know a thing, ask... nicely.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
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".

As I mentioned, it's certainly possible to define it that way. And if you choose to, I have nothing much to discuss here, except to suggest that the title of the thread has very little real meaning, since ANYONE can be a 'careful historian' by writing down faithfully what they hear about events that have already occurred. That is literally the bar, and it's a low one. But...again...that's a legitimate way of defining 'historian'.

It's not a universal way of defining it though.

A more modern and structured method for defining historians is around the following tenets;
  1. The historian must treat sources with appropriate reservations;
  2. The historian must not dismiss counter evidence without scholarly consideration;
  3. The historian must be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew "cherry-picking";
  4. The historian must clearly indicate any speculation;
  5. The historian must not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents;
  6. The historian must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict his or her favored view; and
  7. The historian must take the motives of historical actors into consideration.
Source : Wayback Machine

Using that as a rough objective guide, you can see the reason for my comments. In particular, my contention that almost NO ancient chroniclers are what we would consider objective historians.
That might make it a stretch to answer your other questions and points, since we are probably fundamentally different in our approach to the OP. But I'll try and do so in good faith.

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!"

Unequivocally a resounding Yes? No...I think it's clear that he claims to be a student of history. I think it's very difficult to prove whether he is or not beyond that claim. This is...again...common and not unique to Luke. The problem lies in the limited source material we have to validate the claim.
As a simple thought exercise, consider David Irving and Raul Hilberg. Both claim the title of historian, and both would suggest they have traced all things from the start with accuracy.
We validate these claims by referring to other sources, and cross-checking (in brief). That is difficult to do with Luke's claim.

#2 -
We see things like this...
525px-Nabonidus_cylinder_sippar_bm1.jpg

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.

The cylinder is history. The claim made by Nabonidus is history. The fact that he repaired three temples is speculative. Given that we have no contradictory evidence (that I am aware of) we accept the speculation, but it remains speculative.
But he's an interesting case in point. A lot of claims regarding Nabonidus were made well after the period of his reign, and they have massively impacted our modern perception of him. These claims have not always fitted neatly with primary source evidence when it has been available. So too has there been difficulty in determining motivation for some actions. The movement of cult statues to Babylon is something we can determine probably happened (based on multiple sources), but the rationale behind this is speculative.


We see things like this..
viewer-Isaiah.jpg

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.
the-temple-scroll-from-the-dead-sea-scrolls,2150299.jpg

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

I'm not sure I'm following your point here, sorry.
My knowledge on the Nabonidus cylinders is limited. I'd accept that's it's verification of the last king of Babylon, which was the main thing I was aware of it for (since Belshazzar had been questioned as mythical to that point). What else do you see these two sources as corroborating?
Or am I misunderstanding you on this point?


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.

Both Rival and Windwalker are religious, albeit not of the same religion as you, and not perhaps as tied to scripture (I mean that as an accurate description, not a judgement).
I don't believe I've made any distinctions in any of my arguments about religious versus non-religious.
And I think it's entirely possible for people to act in a manner that is pragmatic and disciplined in areas such as science and history. That is not the same as saying all people can do so, and obviously there are examples across all disciplines of people not acting in an appropriate and professional manner for all sorts of reasons, with all sorts of impacts on results and analysis.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You never fail do you... You repeat the same note, every time... like clockwork.
When will you ever learn that you are not the only one who can read and understand?
First, understand why someone posts something, instead of assuming what you don't know.
Second, take a lesson from your own instructions - If you don't know a thing, ask... nicely.

That is because you repeat the same errors. You used an article that you did not understand and formed an argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy.

You do not seem to understand that in the sciences there will be some outliers. They may be right, but most of the time they are wrong. There is nothing terribly bad about being wrong in the sciences. If people don't have the nerve to bring new ideas forward the sciences would advance very slowly. Others will or more likely already have tested the claims of these people. That you have not heard anything more about it tell us that the idea presented in that paper, that man is more closely related to orangutans than chimps was wrong. You are grasping at straws trying to find a flaw in the theory instead of learning why and how it works. That makes you look bad. Then when you object to a correction you look even worse.

You should have asked about the orangutan article, there are those here that could explain likely flaws in it, instead you thought that it harmed the theory when that was not the case at all.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
mul·ti·tude
a large number.


man·y
a large number of.

Yes, I see.
No, you don't see.
Luke's Baptist despised the people, Matthew's Baptist despised the priesthood.

Luke got it so wrong.

Obviously the multitudes Luke mentioned were of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Whereas Luke did not specifically identify them, but Matthew did.

No......... obviously not.
Luke was no witness. A lot of his reports and stories, copied, passed down and heard are useful for students of history, but he just didn't understand the whole story and thus got stuff like the above wrong.

Really? Seriously? This is a strong one?
Every mistake that Luke made just shows that he was non a historian, which is what this thread is all about.

Joseph is a son of Heli, by law.
If you need more on that, see here.
Many scholars disagree with you. They suggest that the whole line through Heli must be the distaff line, and thus, Mary was the daughter of Heli. And so of she was a peasant she was Mary BartaHeli, if a Judean Levite then Mary BendaHeli.

If you believe either or both lines written by Matthew and Luke, then that is up to you, but since Galilean peasants mostly used Oral Tradition to pass down their histories I doubt that either of them are true.

Galilean were mostly late converts to Judaism after Babylon, I seem to remember.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
One. O n e. You get your final shot at one. So give me your best one.

You don't get to tell me how many examples can be listed, to show that Luke's gospel was not historically accurate.

Luke had no clue about which reports were true, or not. He just copied or compiled the gospel from other accounts, stories and anecdotes. Much of his gospel is historically very valuable, but much is rubbish, I'm afraid.

My examples were just taken from the first pages of the gospel. In order to show you this I will post uip some more.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

Luke included unique details in his gospel which help historians a lot.

But Luke was not a careful historian. A lot of verses show this this. At this time, on this thread, the list of examples is growing.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@user4578 and @nPeace

Luke didn't rreally understand what the Baptists's and Jesus's missions were really about.

The Temple had many images of Baal and graven images within and all male visitors were required to touch these.
The visiting Jewish peasants got ripped off for every service, bed or board they needed while near Jerusalem, the money exchange rates were criminal, the sacrificial sales were expensive and the priesthood was just a bunch of corrupt, greedy, hypocritical quislings.

By redeeming and cleansing folks in the Jordan whole families could go straight back home with most of their savings, rather than getting ripped off on the sacrificial trail. Temple takings must have crashed.

See how Luke still thought that Jesus supported priest-redemption, payment and sacrifice? He was wrong.

See how Matthew knew that Jesus was totally against the whole Temple trail of corruption. He was right.

Just read below........


Luke {5:13} And he put forth [his] hand,
and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And
immediately the leprosy departed from him. {5:14} And he
charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the
priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Matthew {9:13} But go
ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners
to repentance.

Matthew {12:7} But if ye had
known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
As I mentioned, it's certainly possible to define it that way. And if you choose to, I have nothing much to discuss here, except to suggest that the title of the thread has very little real meaning, since ANYONE can be a 'careful historian' by writing down faithfully what they hear about events that have already occurred. That is literally the bar, and it's a low one. But...again...that's a legitimate way of defining 'historian'.

It's not a universal way of defining it though.

A more modern and structured method for defining historians is around the following tenets;
  1. The historian must treat sources with appropriate reservations;
  2. The historian must not dismiss counter evidence without scholarly consideration;
  3. The historian must be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew "cherry-picking";
  4. The historian must clearly indicate any speculation;
  5. The historian must not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents;
  6. The historian must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict his or her favored view; and
  7. The historian must take the motives of historical actors into consideration.
Source : Wayback Machine

Using that as a rough objective guide, you can see the reason for my comments. In particular, my contention that almost NO ancient chroniclers are what we would consider objective historians.
That might make it a stretch to answer your other questions and points, since we are probably fundamentally different in our approach to the OP. But I'll try and do so in good faith.
Thank you.
It seems to me, from this, there are, and never has been any historian then... unless perhaps you can correct me by providing some solid facts, to the contrary.

Which 'historian' meets those seven tenets?
Let's start with the first on this list - the father.
Herodotus (c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC) was an ancient Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus in the Persian Empire (modern-day Bodrum, Turkey). He is known for having written the book The Histories, a detailed record of his "inquiry" (ἱστορία historía) on the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars. He is widely considered to have been the first writer to have treated historical subjects using a method of systematic investigation—specifically, by collecting his materials and then critically arranging them into an historiographic narrative. On account of this, he is often referred to as "The Father of History", a title first conferred on him by the first-century BC Roman orator Cicero.
Despite Herodotus's historical significance, little is known about his personal life. His Histories primarily deals with the lives of Croesus, Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius, and Xerxes and the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Artemisium, Salamis, Plataea, and Mycale; however, his many cultural, ethnographical, geographical, historiographical, and other digressions form a defining and essential part of the Histories and contain a wealth of information. Herodotus has been criticized for the fact that his book includes a large number of obvious legends and fanciful accounts. Many authors, starting with the late fifth-century BC historian Thucydides, have accused him of making up stories for entertainment. Herodotus, however, states that he is merely reporting what he has been told. A sizable portion of the information he provides has since been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.

In his introduction to Hecataeus's work, Genealogies:
Hecataeus the Milesian speaks thus: I write these things as they seem true to me; for the stories told by the Greeks are various and in my opinion absurd.

This points forward to the "folksy" yet "international" outlook typical of Herodotus. However, one modern scholar has described the work of Hecataeus as "a curious false start to history", since despite his critical spirit, he failed to liberate history from myth. Herodotus mentions Hecataeus in his Histories, on one occasion mocking him for his naive genealogy and, on another occasion, quoting Athenian complaints against his handling of their national history. It is possible that Herodotus borrowed much material from Hecataeus, as stated by Porphyry in a quote recorded by Eusebius. In particular, it is possible that he copied descriptions of the crocodile, hippopotamus, and phoenix from Hecataeus's Circumnavigation of the Known World (Periegesis / Periodos ges), even misrepresenting the source as "Heliopolitans" (Histories 2.73).
...........

It is clear from the beginning of Book 1 of the Histories that Herodotus utilizes (or at least claims to utilize) various sources in his narrative.
...........



Unequivocally a resounding Yes? No...I think it's clear that he claims to be a student of history. I think it's very difficult to prove whether he is or not beyond that claim. This is...again...common and not unique to Luke. The problem lies in the limited source material we have to validate the claim.
As a simple thought exercise, consider David Irving and Raul Hilberg. Both claim the title of historian, and both would suggest they have traced all things from the start with accuracy.
We validate these claims by referring to other sources, and cross-checking (in brief). That is difficult to do with Luke's claim.
Please, could you explain why it is difficult, and what are some of the contributing factors.


The cylinder is history. The claim made by Nabonidus is history. The fact that he repaired three temples is speculative. Given that we have no contradictory evidence (that I am aware of) we accept the speculation, but it remains speculative.
But he's an interesting case in point. A lot of claims regarding Nabonidus were made well after the period of his reign, and they have massively impacted our modern perception of him. These claims have not always fitted neatly with primary source evidence when it has been available. So too has there been difficulty in determining motivation for some actions. The movement of cult statues to Babylon is something we can determine probably happened (based on multiple sources), but the rationale behind this is speculative.
Which makes me curious to know which 'historian' you would pull from the list I referred to, and consider a historian. Can you give me one, and show why that one gets a pass.
Take your time. No rush. You can have the entire month - no problem (not being sarcastic, but sincerely).



I'm not sure I'm following your point here, sorry.
My knowledge on the Nabonidus cylinders is limited. I'd accept that's it's verification of the last king of Babylon, which was the main thing I was aware of it for (since Belshazzar had been questioned as mythical to that point).
Oh? I was not aware that Belshazzar was considered mythical. From what source does this information come?
What else do you see these two sources as corroborating?
What sources are you referring to? I was not referring to the sources concerning Belshazzar.
Is this why you mentioned Belshazzar as being mythical? Are you saying that the mention of Belshazzar in the Bible is mythical, whereas, the one mentioned in the chronicle is historical?
Or am I misunderstanding you on this point?
It appears so.
I thought I was being clear. Seems I am not sure how to be clearer. You'll have to view the video, and look again at the second point (#2). If you still don't get it, don't bother with it.




Both Rival and Windwalker are religious, albeit not of the same religion as you, and not perhaps as tied to scripture (I mean that as an accurate description, not a judgement).
I don't believe I've made any distinctions in any of my arguments about religious versus non-religious.
And I think it's entirely possible for people to act in a manner that is pragmatic and disciplined in areas such as science and history. That is not the same as saying all people can do so, and obviously there are examples across all disciplines of people not acting in an appropriate and professional manner for all sorts of reasons, with all sorts of impacts on results and analysis.
Understood.
Perhaps the structure of the statements gave me a wrong impression.
However, it's not uncommon for religious people to put other religious people in a box, and especially is it not uncommon for this to be done by religious people with primary focus toward secular leanings, or even as scripture says, 'half baked' - Not saying this is the case with anyone in particular, but I have experienced this elsewhere, and it appears to be present on these boards.
My argument though is based on what come through to me. Since I can't read thoughts, the persons conveying their thoughts would be obliged to make their position clear. At least that what I think... placing myself in that position.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That is because you repeat the same errors. You used an article that you did not understand and formed an argument from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy.

You do not seem to understand that in the sciences there will be some outliers. They may be right, but most of the time they are wrong. There is nothing terribly bad about being wrong in the sciences. If people don't have the nerve to bring new ideas forward the sciences would advance very slowly. Others will or more likely already have tested the claims of these people. That you have not heard anything more about it tell us that the idea presented in that paper, that man is more closely related to orangutans than chimps was wrong. You are grasping at straws trying to find a flaw in the theory instead of learning why and how it works. That makes you look bad. Then when you object to a correction you look even worse.

You should have asked about the orangutan article, there are those here that could explain likely flaws in it, instead you thought that it harmed the theory when that was not the case at all.
Of course you are right. After all, when is Subduction Zone ever wrong.
I made my point. Since the working interpretation is just one of many interpretations, then it's just an opinion, and to repeat, opinion is not evidence.
If you disagree then you are surely entitled to your opinion.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
@user4578 and @nPeace

Another typical example...................

See how Luke's account is untrustworthy in so many details:-

Luke {19:41} And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, ....................
Luke {19:45} And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;

So Luke's Jesus arrived, went in and then assaulted and ejected the traders. Wrong!
But in Mark's account Jesus went in, looked about and left!!
It was on the second day that Jesus demonstrated against traders and money changers, and then picketed the Temple Courts. Much more accuracy there.

Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem,
and into the temple: and when he had looked round about
upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went
out unto Bethany with the twelve.

{11:12} And on the morrow,.......................
]{11:15} And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went
into the temple, and began to cast out
them that sold and
bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
{11:16} And would not suffer that any man should carry
[any] vessel through the temple.


And so, to answer the Thread title, Luke was a weak and unreliable historian.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
No, you don't see.
Yes, I did see.
Luke's Baptist despised the people, Matthew's Baptist despised the priesthood.
No. That is not what we read. That is your opinion.
Luke got it so wrong.
No. You say that without any valid support.


No......... obviously not.
Luke was no witness. A lot of his reports and stories, copied, passed down and heard are useful for students of history, but he just didn't understand the whole story and thus got stuff like the above wrong.
You don't need to understand an entire story, in order to pen the truth.
As he says, he traced all things accurately. He does not have to give every detail, in order for it to be accurate.
Matthew's account, as well as Marks's and John's corroborate his report.
They don't need people who don't know head nor tail what occurred, to confirm their account.
You don't know that it's wrong.
Sure, you can give your opinion, but to many, you opinion is just an opinion, and a wrong one.


Every mistake that Luke made just shows that he was non a historian, which is what this thread is all about.
People have accused other historians of worst. See Herodotus.
The fact is, who knows? Certainly not the person making the accusation.
So what can be worst than a critic that was not an eyewitness, not a gatherer of accounts from various witnesses, not even a contemporary to anyone near the historian?
I'll settle for the historians account.
At least I know I am getting something from someone who isn't totally clueless.
Moreover, when many of the historian's account are in line with other historians, there is validity to at least some things they say.
What can a critic with no knowledge at all of anything at all that went down, give me? Nothing at all.


Many scholars disagree with you. They suggest that the whole line through Heli must be the distaff line, and thus, Mary was the daughter of Heli. And so of she was a peasant she was Mary BartaHeli, if a Judean Levite then Mary BendaHeli.

If you believe either or both lines written by Matthew and Luke, then that is up to you, but since Galilean peasants mostly used Oral Tradition to pass down their histories I doubt that either of them are true.

Galilean were mostly late converts to Judaism after Babylon, I seem to remember.
Well, not many people care much that people think their opinions somehow become fact, because of who they are, and I don't think they care much, how long the critics rely on their doubts either.
They seem pretty content with what others - whether they be the minority - consider to be enough evidence for what earlier historians confirm.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...esus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/#note39

You don't get to tell me how many examples can be listed, to show that Luke's gospel was not historically accurate.
Of course not.

Luke had no clue about which reports were true, or not. He just copied or compiled the gospel from other accounts, stories and anecdotes. Much of his gospel is historically very valuable, but much is rubbish, I'm afraid.

My examples were just taken from the first pages of the gospel. In order to show you this I will post uip some more.
Carry on.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
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. :)


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.


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.


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.


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.

All the little-girl style application of smilie faces
will not change what the word "valid" means.

Ifn you is so dang smart, I should not have to question
your abilities on this level.

You made a ridiculous claim about things being
equally "valid" when then are plainly are not, are
more like opposites.

Do you acknowledge that? Nope- off you go
on a lot of vapid blah blah to overexplain the
irrelevant and the obvious. And try to misrepresent
me.

Now, I cant keep track of what silly ideas all of you
guys may have, so forgive me for bringing this
up again. You did not respond to it.

Good analysis of how you can go right on believing there was
a flood.


So do you?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you acknowledge that? Nope- off you go
on a lot of vapid blah blah to overexplain the
irrelevant and the obvious. And try to misrepresent
me.
And yet, here you are back at it again. I don't think over-explain is possible, since you haven't gotten it yet. But maybe the next time will be the charm.

Now, I cant keep track of what silly ideas all of you
guys may have, so forgive me for bringing this
up again. You did not respond to it.

Good analysis of how you can go right on believing there was
a flood.


So do you?
No I do not believe the mythologies of the Bible are historical facts. BTW, I'm not a "you guys". I'm me, and you've had enough discussions with me to know better by now. And if you don't know who it is you are having a conversation with, then why I am talking with you? You don't appear to be actually having one with me.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
ROTFLMFAO the first wiki page I went to Suetonius was his bio and had many mentions of historical books he wrote on famous folks back then fro Rome and such.

Then I found this Suetanius which says he spoke about early Christians some say he spoke about Jesus akthough there is no mention of Jesus name;
What he said about early Christians being one of the many who were killed by Nero, or tortured whatever, that Christians are too religious and not a good group. LMAO guess wiki does not agree with you.

Suetonius on Christians - Wikipedia
Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome
References to an expulsion of Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Claudius, who was in office AD 41-54, appear in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2), and in the writings of Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122), Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome
References to an expulsion of Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Claudius, who was in office AD 41-54, appear in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2), and in the writings of Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122), Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.
Yes, the author of Luke Acts got some facts right. Why does this seem to surprise you? Being right part of the time does not mean being right all of the time. And as I have pointed out before you should be thankful for that . Since the Bible is wrong part of the time, Genesis and Exodus to start, it does not mean that it is wrong all of the time.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Yes, the author of Luke Acts got some facts right. Why does this seem to surprise you? Being right part of the time does not mean being right all of the time. And as I have pointed out before you should be thankful for that . Since the Bible is wrong part of the time, Genesis and Exodus to start, it does not mean that it is wrong all of the time.
Oh. Only when there is no way to jump around like a chicken, on it, is it right.
So Luke wrote this 30 to 40 or more years after, and got it right, but had amnesia or became senile where certain other events were concerned.
Worst yet, dropping our eyes down a few lines from his 'getting it right', the poor guy suddenly lost it, and began speaking foolishness - making up names, and uttering stupid myths - "...he transferred from there and went into the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshipper of God, whose house adjoined the synagogue. 8 But Crisʹpus, the presiding officer of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, along with all his household. And many of the Corinthians who heard began to believe and be baptized. 9 Moreover, the Lord said to Paul in a vision by night: “Do not be afraid, but keep on speaking and do not keep silent, 10 for I am with you..." Acts 18:7-10

Critics. They never cease to amaze me.

Okay, so these events took place around the mid 50s AD, so we can date Chapter 18 around this period, Chapters 1-17, and 19-28... any date beyond 80 AD is fine.
Gallio and the book of Acts
According to the Book of Acts he dismissed the charge brought by the Jews against the Apostle Paul (Acts 18:12-17). His behaviour on this occasion ("but Gallio cared for none of these things", v. 17) showed his disregard for Jewish sensitivities, and also the impartial attitude of Roman officials towards Christianity in its early days. Gallio's tenure can be fairly accurately dated to between 51-52 AD. Therefore, the events of Acts 18 can be dated to this period. This is significant because it is the most accurately known date in the life of Paul.

We don't need rocket science to tell us that the events leading up to this event, occurred before Chapter 18. So do we need "experts" to work this out for us? If Acts was written around a certain period, we can work out when Luke was written.
Can you work out how many (years) passed before Paul's arrest, to the time Luke stopped applying ink?
I find this to be so amusing.

Was Paul released from prison after this?
If Luke was a companion of Paul, when did he accompany Paul - before his arrest, or after? In which book do we read of it?
The truth is available to those who want it. Take it or leave it; It really does not matter to us. We don't need phony experts to create myths for us. You can keep those ane read them, if it allows you to sleep well at night.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh. Only when there is no way to jump around like a chicken, on it, is it right.
So Luke wrote this 30 to 40 or more years after, and got it right, but had amnesia or became senile where certain other events were concerned.

Where did you get that number from? The last time I checked the Gospel of Luke was not written until 80 AD or later. That is more like 50 years. And Luke was a good geographer, but not so good of a historian. For some reason Christian apologists seem to get the two conflated.

Worst yet, dropping our eyes down a few lines from his 'getting it right', the poor guy suddenly lost it, and began speaking foolishness - making up names, and uttering stupid myths - "...he transferred from there and went into the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshipper of God, whose house adjoined the synagogue. 8 But Crisʹpus, the presiding officer of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, along with all his household. And many of the Corinthians who heard began to believe and be baptized. 9 Moreover, the Lord said to Paul in a vision by night: “Do not be afraid, but keep on speaking and do not keep silent, 10 for I am with you..." Acts 18:7-10

Critics. They never cease to amaze me.

Okay, so these events took place around the mid 50s AD, so we can date Chapter 18 around this period, Chapters 1-17, and 19-28... any date beyond 80 AD is fine.
Gallio and the book of Acts
According to the Book of Acts he dismissed the charge brought by the Jews against the Apostle Paul (Acts 18:12-17). His behaviour on this occasion ("but Gallio cared for none of these things", v. 17) showed his disregard for Jewish sensitivities, and also the impartial attitude of Roman officials towards Christianity in its early days. Gallio's tenure can be fairly accurately dated to between 51-52 AD. Therefore, the events of Acts 18 can be dated to this period. This is significant because it is the most accurately known date in the life of Paul.

We don't need rocket science to tell us that the events leading up to this event, occurred before Chapter 18. So do we need "experts" to work this out for us? If Acts was written around a certain period, we can work out when Luke was written.
Can you work out how many (years) passed before Paul's arrest, to the time Luke stopped applying ink?
I find this to be so amusing.

Was Paul released from prison after this?
If Luke was a companion of Paul, when did he accompany Paul - before his arrest, or after? In which book do we read of it?
The truth is available to those who want it. Take it or leave it; It really does not matter to us. We don't need phony experts to create myths for us. You can keep those ane read them, if it allows you to sleep well at night.

Why do you continue to assume that Luke was written by Luke? Again, most scholars do not seem to think that this is the case. What we have is a book that has all the hallmarks of someone that cared but was not an eyewitness speaking to perhaps some eyewitnesses, for the later events, but no eyewitness testimony at all for the earlier events.
 
Top