Is the New Testament historically accurate? (evolution, experience, God, Christian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,936,505 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
It is true that Paul's writings predate the gospels by quite a bit, but it's news to me that anyone thinks Paul is the author of Luke.
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are widely regarded as having the same author, traditionally Luke, the companion of Paul ... but Luke's authorship has pretty much become a minority view in recent generations. Like many books of the Bible, we simply don't know who the anonymous author is.
I already showed in post #138 why Luke does not contradict Paul, and that he did not change the facts.
Now you are accusing Paul of lying. It was Paul who mentioned King Aretas. On the one hand, you accuse Luke of lying, and on the other hand you accuse Paul of lying. There is absolutely no reason why king Aretas could not have left a sufficient number of men to guard Damascus.
Now you are being evasive. Demonstrably Luke lies in Acts about why Paul (according to Paul himself) had to escape Damascus. He alters it from escaping the leader of the Nabatean army why were about to occupy Damascus to escaping a plot by Jews to kill him. That is lying in my book.
I also say that Paul is talking nonsense (lying, if you want to use the term - though I wonder whether Paul knew the difference) in claiming that the Nabatean General was after him. I cannot believe that the Nabatean army knew or cared about Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
...
How can Luke do a free adaptation of Acts when he wrote Acts, as well as the Gospel of Luke? And I say again that your charge that Luke lied need not even be addressed. He knew Paul and accurately recorded what Paul told him.
I forgot this. You are being a bit semantic here. I am saying he freely adapted the material of the gospels he worked from -the same material the other synoptic writers had - and adds his own material. And he does the same with the material he had about Paul's activities, and adds to that too. And I say again that Luke's lies, fiddling and invention in Acts is demonstrable so to refuse to address it is refusing to face facts. The facts being that he did not accurately record what Paul himself wrote (which is dubious enough in hi own words) and I very much doubt that he ever knew Paul or spoke to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No Arequipa, you have not shown that it is false. You have not shown anything but your personal opinion. Paul was converted. That is a fact. Luke records how he was converted. That Paul didn't say in one of his epistles, ''Oh, by the way, I endorse Luke's account of my conversion,'' doesn't mean that he objected to it. Paul's letters addressed specific issues in the churches to which he wrote. He had no reason to validate Luke's account of his conversion. You are attempting to make an argument from silence, and apparently as well as from a need for Luke to be wrong.
Now, I have had enough of this forum for one day.
Don't blame you. it is demanding work. But your argument depends on the 'just because he didn't say it doesn't mean he didn't know it or agree with it'. argument.
While talking about how he came to where he is, that he doesn't explain how he was struck blind, heard Jesus talk, was converted etc. makes it impossible that this actually happened to him but he didn't think it worth mentioning.
Galatians 1.13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
You will see that the underlined section indicates that Paul became converted before he went to Arabia and then to Damascus and that is where he should have described this amazing apparition as per Acts, if it was true. You still think it is ok that it isn't there?
I should have said 'confirmed' rather than endorsed, because of course it is a question of Paul having not mentioned something important that Luke writes in Acts. Of course Acts was written after Paul had gone from the scene. There is no question of his writing an approving preface to Acts.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2015 at 08:05 PM..
I read the argument that there is another Judas mentioned by Josephus that was involved in tax revolt under Herod. He raises some questions, but the first thing that occurs to me is - isn't it a bit of a coincidence that another Judas with a rather similar surname and who is also involved in a tax revolt, did it in Herod's time, while all the talk of Judas the Galilean relates to the 6 AD tax revolt.
Judas was a common name back then, and even though we like to think of Jesus' name as unique, it was not then either. There were actually two Judas' in the disciples of Jesus, which is why the NT always defines them, as in John 14:22 and John 18:2. Not sure why you add this to the mix?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The next is that, if this was a plausible argument, I am surprised that nobody has previously referred to a definite Judas in a tax revolt known to be in Herod's time? That would conclusively prove there was a tax (and it had to be a census tax to be Luke's) in Herod's time. I think this bod is trying to create a Judas - led tax revolt in Herodian times out of a few quibbles. He also seems to be proposing another priestly associate fro the Herodian Judas as there was for the 6 AD Judas. If the name is also Zadok (which he doesn't say) that surely makes this earlier copy of the 6 AD census a figment of his imagination. I couldn't make sense of the argument that Coponius couldn't be Judean prefect under Quirinus as Quirinus was...let me check...(a legate juridicus; governor = legati pro praetore).
One of Jesus' Apostles was Simon the Zealot, and they as a group were against Roman taxation. Simon was of that ilk when He was called to follow Jesus, but changed while with Jesus to a man that loved God and was eventually martyred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Well I am no Latin expert, but that looks to me like Legate and governor, which Quirinus would be (and he certainly couldn't be in the time of Herod) and Coponius was of lesser equestrian rank and Judean prefect under the Consular Quirinus. This seems straightforward to me.
It appears you have your Herods confused. Which one are you referring to...The Great, Antipas, or Archelaus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I know about Gadara, but Gerasa (Jerash) was a different place entirely. And a long way from the eastern shores of galilee.
I guess that depends on whether what the NT mentions is the same as those you know of, or a different one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
2. Gergesa (Γέργεσα). This town is not to be confused with either Gerasa or Gadara. Gergesa is located, with relative certainty, midway along the E bank of the Sea of Galilee; Gadara is six m. SE from the S end of the Sea of Galilee; and Gerasa is some thirty-five m. SE. - See more at: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/lib....EjYDpbCR.dpuf
Archeologists identify it with the modern Jarash. At this distance from the Sea of Galilee, Gerasa could not have been the site of the healing of “Legion.†It is doubtful that Jesus ever visited it. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/lib...rasa-gerasenes
Apart from the usual rendition being 'Jerash' this is spot on.
Judas was a common name back then, and even though we like to think of Jesus' name as unique, it was not then either. There were actually two Judas' in the disciples of Jesus, which is why the NT always defines them, as in John 14:22 and John 18:2. Not sure why you add this to the mix?
It is true that Judas was a common name. But now I think of it, that argument must have been saying that the Josephus 6 AD census must be misdated and really refer to Herodian (the "Great") times, but that makes no sense as Josephus is referring to Archelaus being deposed and the Romans disposing of his wealth. No, unless Josephus describes two separate revolts by a Judas, one in the context of the rule of King Herod, then Josephus is really not relevant. (1)
The argument has to be that the census of Quirinus as described in Luke is in the time of King Herod, and the one described by Josephus is a later one in the time of the Roman take -over. I just don't follow the guy's argument.
(p.s) I think I see the argument -that "Antiquities" and "the Jewish war" are actually referring to two similar -sounding tax revolts, one in the time of Herod and one at the time of the Roman take -over. I'll look into that.
Quote:
One of Jesus' Apostles was Simon the Zealot, and they as a group were against Roman taxation. Simon was of that ilk when He was called to follow Jesus, but changed while with Jesus to a man that loved God and was eventually martyred.
Yes, I am aware of Simon the Zealot. I don't see how he affects the issue.
Quote:
It appears you have your Herods confused. Which one are you referring to...The Great, Antipas, or Archelaus?
King Herod the "Great" of course, as that is the one Matthew is referring to. The whole argument is that the Lucan tax census cannot have been in the time of King Herod.
Quote:
I guess that depends on whether what the NT mentions is the same as those you know of, or a different one.
I guess it does. but I can only say that scholarship, skeptic or Biblical all seem to agree that Gadara, Gergesa and Gerasa are different places and Gerasa is Jerash.
I don't see how any of that really affects the issue that I suppose you are addressing - whether Jesus ever visited Gadara or not. There's no way of knowing, but when one becomes aware of how unreliable and contradictory the Gospel stories are, one doubts that any such visit to Gadara was as the Synoptics describe.
Well, that shows pretty clearly what I remember - there is a road from Galilee going south to Jerusalem. There is no meaning to the term 'passing along between Samaria and Galilee'. Luke 17.11
Quote:
IF you don't default to faith in the accuracy of the Bible, you'll always be looking for excuses or reasons to NOT accept it.
ah the good ol' "bias" accusation. Well, let me observe that I accept what seems supported by what evidence there is and it is Bible apologists who are always looking for excuses and pretexts not to accept what is pretty damn' obvious - that the Gospels are full of contradictions that pretty soundly demonstrate that they are quite unreliable.
(1) Judas of Galilee, or Judas of Gamala, was a Jewish leader who led an armed resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around 6 AD.[1] The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans. These events are discussed by Josephus in The Jewish War and in Antiquities of the Jews and mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.(Wiki)
It certainly looks as though Josephus only describes one such revolt and it has to be after the death of king Herod. Any similar Judas the Galilean, Tax census or related revolt in the time of King Herod is postulated without any evidence in Josephus or anywhere else and is postulates purely to get around the dating contradiction between Matthew and Luke. And as I say, none of these efforts stand up.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2015 at 02:27 AM..
The Jewish war Ch 8. 1. AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders.
Antiquities Book 18. Ch 1.
. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt
The two books are clearly describing the same tax revolt and is clearly at the time of the roman takeover of 6 AD after Herod Archelaus was deposed, and of course after the death of King Herod, whether that was 4 BC or later. However one tinkers or fiddles with the evidence, that is what it comes down to every time. The Lucan census looks to be the only one that Qurinus conducted. That was the one described in both books of Josephus and is the tax imposed after Judea became a Roman province. 6 A.D
all religions started somewhere. That is true enough for the reasonable non literalist. It seems to me that only fundamentals need the bible to be true or false only. Also, how the bible was assembled suggest that the bible was never intended to be taken literally true. It was assemble to standardize the themes and organize its followers. To that end the bible is fine.
Of course, like anything else, when we get our hands on it things change. kinda like tossing in a teddy bear into a chimpanzee troop at your local zoo. Not even matin luther meant it to be "word for word literally true". he wasn't stupid.
The Bible absolutely does have to be recognized as an historical source. It records real events which historically happened. If Jesus wasn't crucified, and if He wasn't resurrected, then there is no basis for Christianity. But the early disciples saw the resurrected Jesus. His resurrection was a real and historical event. And if, since you claim to be a believer, you can't understand that, then there's nothing left to say to you because you just don't get it. Whether you consider the Bible to be an historical source or not, historians do even though as I said, secular historians don't recognize everything in the Bible as historical.
RESPONSE:
Haven't you fallen into the "all" or "none" error? Some things in the Bible are historical events. Others are doubtfully historical, such as two different dates in Matthew and Luke for Jesus birth (ie. before 4 BC and in 6 AD.)
And have you noticed that the Resurrection account developes only gradually as time goes on?
Jesus was crucified about 30-35 AD (and supposedly was raised from the dead three days later) That would have been the most famous story of all time if it were true. The story would have spread widely and at least some who heard it would have written it down.
But apparently nobody did until Paul (a nonwitness) in about 57 AD, or 20 to 25 years after the fact.
Note that Paul's account does not match the sequence of events given in Matthew, Mark, or John. Paul doesn't even have an "empty tomb" story or an initial appearance to women, or an Ascension.
John, who some try to tell us wrote the Gospel of John, doesn't recall on what day the crucifixion occurred, claiming the day before Passover, so he don't mention any Passover supper or the institution of the Eucharist.
There are many contradictions. Luke has Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany on the evening of the same day he was raised, while Acts of the Aposples has Jesus ascend to heaven 40 days later from the the Mount of Olives. Curiously, both accounts by tradition were written by the same man.
Obviously, very much in the New Testament is contradictory and in such cases at least one version must be false, or both versions!
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-23-2015 at 04:50 AM..
Reason: typo
all religions started somewhere. That is true enough for the reasonable non literalist. It seems to me that only fundamentals need the bible to be true or false only. Also, how the bible was assembled suggest that the bible was never intended to be taken literally true. It was assemble to standardize the themes and organize its followers. To that end the bible is fine.
Of course, like anything else, when we get our hands on it things change. kinda like tossing in a teddy bear into a chimpanzee troop at your local zoo. Not even matin luther meant it to be "word for word literally true". he wasn't stupid.
It's sorta hard for me to read a book like the bible and not suppose that it was intended to be taken as literal fact. However, if everyone took your view of it the arguments we have would be totally different - e.g are the examples and recommendations in the Bible good ones, or do other philosophies and moralities make better ones? I suggest they do.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2015 at 06:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it is demanding work. But your argument depends on the 'just because he didn't say it doesn't mean he didn't know it or agree with it'. argument.
ah the good ol' "bias" accusation. Well, let me observe that I accept what seems supported by what evidence there is and it is Bible apologists who are always looking for excuses and pretexts not to accept what is pretty damn' obvious - that the Gospels are full of contradictions that pretty soundly demonstrate that they are quite unreliable.
