Atheism is not scientific

[Brian2]

Luke is written as a first-hand account. It obviously isn't. Where does Luke admit he was not an eyewitness?

How does Luke know what transpired between Zacharias and the angle?

18And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.​

​

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Speculation or a reasonable evaluation of the available facts? There is a difference.

For a sceptic it seems like a reasonable evaluation to dismiss prophecy and subsequently have to ignore any internal evidence to arrive at the conclusion of where and when a gospel was written.

So, according to you, no Christian or Hebrew scholar came to the same conclusion. Please cite some of these secular historians and their documented religious beliefs.

I did not say that no Christian or Hebrew scholar came to the same conclusion. What I was saying is that they were using secular historian assumptions.
These assumptions crept into the Biblical colleges and that is what many Christian ministers and theologians have been taught.

Also, I see you used the phrase "prophesied destruction of the temple". Is this the prophecy?

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
​

When was the Gospel According to Mark Written? (my emphasis)

Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course.

Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.
​

In any case, how does Mark know what Jesus said?

All the synoptics have that prophecy and they were either there hearing Jesus or did their research, heard the story, like Luke. The only gospel without the prophecy is the one that really was written after the destruction of the temple.
But as you say, it is this prophecy which marks the point when the gospels had to have been written.
It should actually make a difference whether it was before, during or after the war. The prophecy says "not one stone will be left on another". The heat of the fire in the temple melted the gold and it went down between the stones so the Romans upturned the stones to get it, not stone left on another.

 

[Windwalker]

Nothing has had a conscious control over the survival of the earth's environment except man. We are not ignorant of the consequences of our actions these days.

Except of course for all the climate change deniers who see the whole thing as a big Chinese hoax, or some fool thing.

 

[ecco]

Nothing has had a conscious control over the survival of the earth's environment except man. We are not ignorant of the consequences of our actions these days.

My point is that roaches have survived far longer than humans. What's your point?

 

[ecco]

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Did you read that carefully? Luke is saying that others have commented. Now he is going to write his version. Nothing in this "qualification" indicates where he is getting his specific quotes of conversations between Jesus and others. Nothing in this "qualification" shows where he is getting his knowledge of what transpired. If anything, his wording is somewhat dismissive of the other writings. Regardless, the information is second-hand or third-hand or based on completely made-up stuff.

For a sceptic it seems like a reasonable evaluation to dismiss prophecy and subsequently have to ignore any internal evidence to arrive at the conclusion of where and when a gospel was written.

I'll be glad to evaluate the reasonableness of prophecy once someone can show a clear, concise, unambiguous prophecy. So far, no one has.

I did not say that no Christian or Hebrew scholar came to the same conclusion. What I was saying is that they were using secular historian assumptions.
These assumptions crept into the Biblical colleges and that is what many Christian ministers and theologians have been taught.

You have yet to show that the archeological history being taught in Bible colleges came from only the research of secular historians. You won't be able to do that without naming names and showing which teachings you are referring to. Until then, it is a moot point.

All the synoptics have that prophecy and they were either there hearing Jesus or did their research, heard the story, like Luke. The only gospel without the prophecy is the one that really was written after the destruction of the temple.
But as you say, it is this prophecy which marks the point when the gospels had to have been written.
It should actually make a difference whether it was before, during or after the war. The prophecy says "not one stone will be left on another". The heat of the fire in the temple melted the gold and it went down between the stones so the Romans upturned the stones to get it, not stone left on another.

Why all the concern about which came first, the "prophecy" of the destruction or the actual destruction. Rome was, to put it mildly, getting very annoyed with the Hebrews. Some people were probably saying, "The Romans are probably going to tear down the temple." Is that a prophecy or a realization that if you pull the tail of the tiger long enough you're going to get bit?

People "prophesized" that Germany was going in the wrong direction and got out long before 1939.

The destruction of the Temple is no more of a prophecy that he realization the Germany was going to erupt.

Evaluating events is not prophecy. I recognized around last December that a vaccine for Covid would be rejected by right-wing Trump conservatives.

 

[Brian2]

My point is that roaches have survived far longer than humans. What's your point?

Surviving is one thing, turning up later and becoming the dominant species and the ones who can destroy the whole ecosystem of the planet or protect it, is another.

 

[Brian2]

Did you read that carefully? Luke is saying that others have commented. Now he is going to write his version. Nothing in this "qualification" indicates where he is getting his specific quotes of conversations between Jesus and others. Nothing in this "qualification" shows where he is getting his knowledge of what transpired. If anything, his wording is somewhat dismissive of the other writings. Regardless, the information is second-hand or third-hand or based on completely made-up stuff.

It looks to me that he is saying that the information has come from witnesses.

I'll be glad to evaluate the reasonableness of prophecy once someone can show a clear, concise, unambiguous prophecy. So far, no one has.

I have done that sort of thing before and there is always someone who has interpreted something differently.

You have yet to show that the archeological history being taught in Bible colleges came from only the research of secular historians. You won't be able to do that without naming names and showing which teachings you are referring to. Until then, it is a moot point.

I do not say that the archaeological history being taught in Bible colleges came only from research of secular historians. There are Christians and Jews also who hold the assumptions of secular historians and who are minimalists when it comes to Biblical history.

Why all the concern about which came first, the "prophecy" of the destruction or the actual destruction. Rome was, to put it mildly, getting very annoyed with the Hebrews. Some people were probably saying, "The Romans are probably going to tear down the temple." Is that a prophecy or a realization that if you pull the tail of the tiger long enough you're going to get bit?

Evaluating events is not prophecy. I recognized around last December that a vaccine for Covid would be rejected by right-wing Trump conservatives.

That is one way of looking at it. When it comes to the gospels it also includes the dismissing of internal evidence for the writings of the gospels and traditions associated with who wrote them, in favour of an assumption about prophecy, and taken to where it is today, it means that the writing of the gospels is put at times when the traditions of who wrote them are impossible and the writings themselves are lying to us and are said by many to be made up by people who knew nothing of Jesus.
It is circular reasoning by secular assumptions that end up making the gospels what secular historians thought all along.

 

[ecco]

Surviving is one thing, turning up later and becoming the dominant species and the ones who can destroy the whole ecosystem of the planet or protect it, is another.

Sure, but it makes you wonder why god felt it necessary to allow the roaches and dinosaurs millions of years to enjoy it all, before creating humans.

 

[ecco]

It looks to me that he is saying that the information has come from witnesses.

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
​

The accounts of many were based on eyewitnesses. Luke decided to investigate from the beginning and write an account. He does not say he is using eyewitnesses.

The KJV version is a little different than the one you quoted...

3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.​

Here he tries to bolster his version by stating he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first". How unfortunate that he never reveals how he came to have had "perfect understanding of all things". How unfortunate that he never reveals how he came to have had any understanding "from the very first".

 

[ecco]

There are Christians and Jews also who hold the assumptions of secular historians and who are minimalists when it comes to Biblical history.

It is circular reasoning by secular assumptions that end up making the gospels what secular historians thought all along.

You really aren't making much of a case. Why would Christians and Jews hold the assumptions of secular historians. One would think they would be doing the opposite. Perhaps you can cite some Christian and Jewish Biblical historians espousing secular views.

 

[Brian2]

Sure, but it makes you wonder why god felt it necessary to allow the roaches and dinosaurs millions of years to enjoy it all, before creating humans.

To me it is plain that God was forming the creation and earth and life and allowing things to evolve and become the environment in which to place humans. It was our job to take care of things and form the world that we wanted. Something went wrong back there in the garden however and we became servants to our greed etc instead of to what God wanted us to do and be.

 

[Brian2]

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
​

The accounts of many were based on eyewitnesses. Luke decided to investigate from the beginning and write an account. He does not say he is using eyewitnesses.

The KJV version is a little different than the one you quoted...

3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.​

Here he tries to bolster his version by stating he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first". How unfortunate that he never reveals how he came to have had "perfect understanding of all things". How unfortunate that he never reveals how he came to have had any understanding "from the very first".

It looks as if he was going to confirm what Theophilus had already been taught. The other accounts may not have been as "orderly" as Luke would have liked.

KJV Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Biblehub is a good site when you have a particular verse and want to compare translations.
Luke 1:3 Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
It looks like he wanted to confirm the historical record of Jesus that Theophilus had already been taught.

 

[Brian2]

You really aren't making much of a case. Why would Christians and Jews hold the assumptions of secular historians. One would think they would be doing the opposite. Perhaps you can cite some Christian and Jewish Biblical historians espousing secular views.

It is one of those things that has snuck into the church from outside.
It began before Wellhausen and his documentary hypothesis which it seems began because of lack of archaeological evidence of Moses and the conquest and so it was proposed that the Pentateuch was written much later than Moses and by a number of redactors. This was seen in the Bible because of the use of Elohim in parts of the Pentateuch and Yahweh in other parts. So the Pentateuch was divided into sections along those lines and it was hypothesised where and when and by whom those parts were written and added to the Bible.
Because it was scholarly and Biblical historians did not want to look unscholarly, it was used, along with other ideas as part of the textual criticism of the Bible, especially in Germany where it originated and then spreading and was picked up especially by those of a more liberal attitude to the Bible and it's historical accuracy. Last century many Bible students were seriously taught this and many lost faith because of it.
Since then archaeology has caught up somewhat and the Documentary hypothesis has been criticised more thoroughly, but is still used.
Inconsistencies in what different parts of the Pentateuch teach and differences in style in different parts of the Pentateuch still suggest different authors.
Redaction of course is no problem with different traditions being joined into one story but redaction took on a different meaning, especially when the date of writing was said by many to be hundreds of years, even 1000 years after Moses.
But I guess it is scholarly and so liberal theologians are no doubt still into it in a big way even if the documentary hypothesis has been criticised thoroughly by other more conservative scholars.
This same sort of thinking also came into criticism of the New Testament texts and in the name of scholarship I guess is used by many Christians theologians to criticise the date and authorship of the gospels etc.
I'm not into it far enough to know who are the conservative and who are the liberal theologians and authors. Many of the important theologians have accepted it to some degree at least.
I guess it has given Christians a different perspective as opposed to hard literalism but it has gone way too far imo.

Here are some sites about liberal theology and they have plenty of names and general information about the topic.
As with all things Christian there appears to be a diversity of ideas about what is liberal and what is not. No doubt many important theologians and Christian leaders of our day have been classed as liberal by others who are strict orthodox. It's a bit subjective and relative like that.

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia
Liberal Theologians – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind
Liberal Theology - The Gospel Coalition
The rise of theological liberalism

 

[ecco]

It is one of those things that has snuck into the church from outside.

You still haven't shown any papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot the views of secular Biblical scholars.

One or two of them would help me understand your argument.

 

[Brian2]

You still haven't shown any papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot the views of secular Biblical scholars.

One or two of them would help me understand your argument.

They do not parrot the views of secular Biblical scholars, they agree with them and hold a similar attitude to the historicity of the Bible and it's usefulness as a historical work and it's authenticity.

 

[metis]

They do not parrot the views of secular Biblical scholars, they agree with them and hold a similar attitude to the historicity of the Bible and it's usefulness as a historical work and it's authenticity.

As long as one remembers that scripture is subjective, not objective. Nor is it inerrant, but it is useful, no doubt.

 

[ecco]

You still haven't shown any papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot the views of secular Biblical scholars.

One or two of them would help me understand your argument.

They do not parrot the views of secular Biblical scholars, they agree with them and hold a similar attitude to the historicity of the Bible and it's usefulness as a historical work and it's authenticity.

You still haven't shown any papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot agree with the views of secular Biblical scholars.

One or two of them would help me understand your argument.

 

[Brian2]

You still haven't shown any papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot agree with the views of secular Biblical scholars.

One or two of them would help me understand your argument.

Which subject do you have in mind?

 

[Brian2]

As long as one remembers that scripture is subjective, not objective. Nor is it inerrant, but it is useful, no doubt.

Scripture is subjective, as long as the term subjective is not taken too far. Scripture cannot mean anything that we want it to mean. (but of course people will see it any way they want and all that can be done is to point out their error)
I would have to agree that it is not inerrant also, but being errant is another term that can be used to discredit all of the Bible by those who have a mind to do that. (of course those who have a mind to do that will do it no matter if Christians say it is inerrant or not)
But of course, scripture is useful, and I feel that this is an understatement.

 

[ecco]

You still haven't shown any papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot agree with the views of secular Biblical scholars.

One or two of them would help me understand your argument.

Which subject do you have in mind?

You can choose whatever subjects you feel support your argument that papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot agree with the views of secular Biblical scholars.

 

[Brian2]

You can choose whatever subjects you feel support your argument that papers written by Jewish or Christian Biblical scholars that parrot agree with the views of secular Biblical scholars.

This is probably not what you had in mind but it gives an idea of the encroachment of secular ideas and teaching into the Christian Church and learning institutions.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia
Burton L. Mack - Wikipedia