Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-07-2016 06:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 03:25 PM)ohio_drg Wrote:  Even though I am on ignore I feel compelled to ask.

Have you seen any evidence for existence prior to 70? Genuinely curious. If such evidence exists I have either overlooked it or just haven't stumbled across it yet.

I had already removed you from ignore, and apologize for my previous conduct.
No worries about that. All water under the bridge now. Thumbsup

(27-07-2016 06:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, they have plenty of evidence.

1. They have coins that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus. They can tell the dating simply by the inscriptions.

2. They have a house that dates to the time of BCE 30 - CE 70. This house compares to other Jewish houses in Judea common in the 1st century.

3. They have numerous other artifacts- including much pottery which is very easy to date and dates for all periods from 100 BCE to 100 CE - which dates before, during, and after the purported time of Jesus.

So yes, the physical evidence is very convincing.

I agree that there is evidence. However, I am not as convinced by it as you are.
I am not sure what it would take to convince me but I will keep an open mind on the topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ohio_drg's post
29-07-2016, 04:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-07-2016 09:04 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 10:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok.

But... I've never come across any convincing evidence that proto Luke the gospel was in existence prior to about 90 CE. In fact I've never been entirely sure why so many commentators date Luke to about as early as this.

Let's examine this. The following is a statement from Wiki:

"Most experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80-90 AD, although some suggest 90-110, and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

I find the two reasons for a late dating of Luke as listed above as to be very poor reasons.

Firstly, as per previous discussions here we demonstrated that the Gospel of Luke was most probably in existence as the Gospel of Luke before Marcion butchered it, otherwise both Irenaeus and Tertullian would not have Marcion saying that he had altered the Gospel of Luke, and also saying how different Marcion's version was from the version that was widely known as being the official Gospel of Luke.

Therefore, this can be taken as historical evidence to contest the assertion that Marcion's butchered version is what we currently have, or that some of it crept into what we currently have.

Regardless if Marcion butchered it or not, the fact that Marcion names it as the Gospel of Luke pre CE 140 demonstrates it was indeed known as the Gospel of Luke long before that.

The Gospel of Luke came before the Book of Acts, as the author of Acts states, "Act 1:1  The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, which is an obvious statement regarding the Gospel of Luke.

Now the author of Luke, speaking to Theophilus, says something quite revealing at the beginning of his Gospel:

Luk 1:2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

He prefaces his Gospel with an explanation to Theophilus that us he had gathered information regarding Jesus from eyewitnesses contemporary to the time of Jesus. This again indicates that the author of this Gospel of was actually a contemporary.

When we add this evidence to the evidence of a 1st person narrative in Acts, we then have two distinct references to this author being a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul.

Now, because this author is writing of things that happened in the past- as evidenced by his preface in Luke and his story in Acts that leads right up to the time he and Paul were in Rome, the earliest possible date would have to be around CE 63, since he doesn't mention Paul's death.

But let's, for the sake of argument, assign a date closer to CE 70, despite the fact that he doesn't mention Paul's death which should be expected. The reason I would assign this date is because this author would have to be an adult at the time he began traveling with Paul sometime in either the late CE 30s, or early 40s.

If we assign a reasonable young age of 25 years old when this author began traveling with Paul, we could place his date of birth around CE 15. This would then allow us to reason that when he wrote Luke-Acts he would be about 55 years old in AD 70.

But if we date the manuscript to CE 110, it places him at 95 years old, which is about 25 years older than the average life expectancy in those days, and far too old to travel and get this information from the eyewitnesses he says he interviewed. Even we place a date at CE 90, we still have an old man of 75 years old.

Therefore, the textual evidence indicates to me that this author wrote Luke-Acts sometime in the late CE 60s to CE 70.

Remember, this evidence comes from his preface in Luke in which he claims to have interviewed contemporaries of Jesus, and also from Acts where he is seen using a 1st person narrative contemporary to the time of both Paul and Jesus.

If he wrote this in hind-sight- which obviously he did- some 30 - 40 years after his first travels with Paul had taken place, then his 1st person narrative would be based upon his memories from the beginning of his travels with Paul some 30+ years previous. This is plenty of time for his memories to be somewhat faded, which could explain some of the differences between his statements in Acts and Paul's letters. However, this author, at the very least, writes the Book of Acts concerning him and Paul and maintains the general gist of what happened with him and Paul when compared to Paul's letters.

When people look for contradictions between Acts and Paul, are they actually using the proper historical outlook, or are they merely trying to find a means of disputing the authenticity of the work?

This is a big question, because if people have an agenda, then they will only see this the way they want to see it. If they want to question authenticity just because they don't like it, sure they can make the choice to dispute it with the various contradictions.

But if they want to see history, they will not see it through the eyes of either a believer or disbeliever, but rather through the eyes of an unbiased secular historian.

Consider

Ok. I read all that.

I don't buy Luke's "eyewitnesses" spiel...

Some scholars claim Luke the author was the physician and friend of Saint Paul, although most of them admit that they are not sure about this. If this were the case, surely “Luke” would have said so, yet he does not.

Even if the author of Luke did know Paul, that should not qualify him to write about Yeshua’s life, because Paul never met Yeshua, and Paul knew almost nothing about Yeshua.

Luke had a very pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish bias. His Greek is more cultivated and polished than Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke did not include Mark and Matthew’s most Judaic verses. For example, his genealogy of Jesus went back to Adam, the world’s first (fictional) man, whereas Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, the fictional Jewish patriarch. Mark and Matthew named Jesus’ brothers, who all had very Jewish names, whereas Luke did not name them.

Luke claimed that he was writing his Gospel to clear up contentious issues from unnamed other accounts of Jesus’ life. They could include Mark’s (which he was familiar with) and/or Matthew’s, yet he could also be referring to any of the scores of stories about Jesus that were circulating at the time.

Luke wrote:
“Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have taken place among us, exactly as those were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received” (Luke 1:1–5, NJB).

This introduction disqualified the author as a direct witness of Jesus’ life. Luke wrote that “eyewitnesses” handed down information to “us” but does not say who either group was or what they were eyewitnesses to. If these “eyewitnesses” had known Jesus, the author surely would have provided more details. This introduction only
sounds impressive; in reality it does nothing to add to “Luke’s” credibility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 04:31 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 06:08 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 08:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 07:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This is how he did it...

Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. He had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.

Only if by dangerous Nazarene beliefs, you mean the belief that gentile christian converts, should be circumcised and follow the Jewish law.

But I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. What you have in mind is a variety of Nazarene beliefs, that you've just been making up as you go along, that you have not a single shred of evidence for, and which the actual evidence contradicts.

Consider...

The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so ignored and later suppressed them. Justin Martyr denigrated their beliefs. The developing orthodox Catholic Church deliberately called them the “Ebionites,” “the poor ones” (although Jews did not consider this term derogatory; in fact they used the term to refer to the righteous.) Christians prior to Irenaeus did not use this term. Irenaeus wrote

“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”
These men were Gnostics who believed Jesus was a very human teacher. Irenaeus continues:

“They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God” (Against Heresies 1:26.)

The Gospel according to Matthew that Irenaeus refers to was probably the same Gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius called the “Gospel of the Nazarenes/Hebrews,” which was written in Aramaic. Jerome mentions that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no significant part of this Gospel survives today. Some scholars believe that it was loosely linked to canonical Matthew, which fits with Matthew being the most pro-Jewish Gospel of the four. It is possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the Gospels.

Eusebius considered the Nazarenes heretics because

“... they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7.)

Irenaeus and Eusebius, both fervent Christians, depicted the Nazarenes correctly as a Jewish sect.

The Nazarenes had "dangerous beliefs" because they were trying to liberate Palestine. Why do you think Jesus was executed? Because he thought he was god? Hardly! The evidence is, in part, in the gospels, if they are read with a careful eye.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 06:01 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 08:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 07:12 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This is how he did it...

Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. He had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.

Only if by dangerous Nazarene beliefs, you mean the belief that gentile christian converts, should be circumcised and follow the Jewish law.

But I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. What you have in mind is a variety of Nazarene beliefs, that you've just been making up as you go along, that you have not a single shred of evidence for, and which the actual evidence contradicts.

"Only if by dangerous Nazarene beliefs, you mean the belief that gentile christian converts, should be circumcised and follow the Jewish law."


Step back and look at the big picture. Consider the socio political scene at the time in Palestine. There was a cold war going on between Judaism and the Gentile world... one that had been going on for at least 100 years beforehand. This erupted into massive military conflicts, the first one in 66 to 70 and the second in 132 to 135.

Jesus, in the 30s, may have been part of this, by trying to start a war in Jerusalem. He failed and was executed. His brother James was executed a few decades later by those in league with the Romans as well. During this time the Roman government tried to use propaganda to undermine Judaism and water the religion down with pro Roman gentiles and pro Roman ideas. Paul was part of this with all his "Christ" nonsense. He more or less says so in many of his letters. He was at odds with Judaism and at odds with the original followers of Jesus.

Then a massive war broke out in 66-70. However even after this first war there was still smouldering resentment against Roman rule. The Romans again tried to use propaganda and invented stories about, this time, Jesus, a pacifist preacher, who had already been and gone. The gospels were first written. They made out that this character, Jesus, was the Jewish Messiah. They even pinched the memory of a real Jesus from a few decades earlier, a political insurgent, and changed his identity into a wandering god man who told people to turn the other cheek and love their enemies. However the Jews didn't buy this bullshit either and there was a second massive revolt in the 130s, after which the Jews were never again a real threat.

Then throughout the second century you have a mixture of Paul's Christ with the Gospel's Jesus and the attempt to mould the two ideologies in the book of acts. I suspect (but can't prove) that the few places in Paul's writings that suggest Jesus was a real historical figure were interpolated into his writings during this time.

It was the Roman government that controlled most of the literature in those days. Think about what that means. The fact that the government was trying to reinvent Judaism is a plain as the nose on your face when one considers the political milieu that the new testament was written in.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(28-07-2016 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 07:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You are very closed to the idea that the Nazarenes were fundamentalist Jews in direct opposition to Paul. I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else interested but I don't want to turn it into a boxing match where you automatically attempt to refute everything I say.

We know the opposition Paul had with other jewish christians, the oppositions revolved exclusively around the Jewish ritual laws, and whether gentiles need abide by them to be a part of the christian community. You suggest it was a lot more than that, based on what exactly? You indicated that we don't really have any sources on what a sect like the Nazarene's believed, and the christian sources here are not be trusted, since they also contradict your suggestions.

SO where did you derive your views about what Nazarene's believed then? Where did you derive their contentions with Paul from, if not from Pauls own writings on his disputes with some of the followers of Jesus?

Quote:I can present a lot of evidence that the Nazarenes and Paul were at odds with each other, however I've presented it before on this forum and I don't want to get the reputation for being a repetitive bore.

You earlier claimed that we have no actual Nazarene writings, and the writings of Paul, and the Church fathers here are to be dismissed. Which would leave you empty handed, with no evidence to supports your claims as to what Paul and the Nazarene's were odds with each other about. I know you're likely gonna start offering a series of unevidenced wild speculations at this point, but I care less about what you imagine their disputes were about, and more about what can be reasonably assumed based on the evidence we have.

There is no other source about the dispute between Paul and the Jewish Christians, other than the writings of Paul himself, about this dispute. Paul's clear as to what that dispute was about, about nothing other than whether or not the Gentiles needed to follows the Jewish ritual laws, to be a part of the Christian community. There's not arguments in relationship to Jesus's divinity, no arguments in regards to the virgin birth, which Paul doesn't mention at all, about the resurrection, etc...

Perhaps you'll suggest that Paul's can't be trusted, well that that leaves you in bind, because now you have nothing to stand on to suggest what their disputes were about.

"You earlier claimed that we have no actual Nazarene writings, and the writings of Paul, and the Church fathers here are to be dismissed."

I wrote that we have the book of James, which may have been written by James the Nazarene. We also have some parts of the dead sea scrolls that may have been written by James the Nazarene. We also have what multiple authors including Josephus and Philo wrote about the Essenes. We have Josephus' account of James. And we have what the church fathers wrote about the Nazarenes. I did mention that the church fathers' writings need to be read with a critical eye, particularly when it comes to their writings about the Nazarenes. Perhaps this quote will put that idea more eloquently than I...


"The Church Fathers who have reported about these Ebionites/Nazoreans were seldom eye-witnesses of the communal life of these groups. They based their reports largely upon hearsay and upon the documents which had become known to them. We must understand the incredible prejudice in the form of anti-Semitism toward anything portending to obser�vance of the Mosaic law. Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Eusebius (whose Ecclesiastical History has preserved fragments from the memoirs of Hegesippus, who Eusebius considered to be a Jewish member of the Great Church) provide what we hope is some factual material in spite of various contradictions in their reports and their obvious prejudice. Of this material, the Panarion of Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis is especially important. It is intended to be a kibotion iatrikon (a medical box for use against wild beasts and snakes). He treats the Nazoreans in chapter 29 and, in detail, the entire Ebionite movement in chapter 30. The accounts are confused in various ways and often jumbled together, but seem partially verifiable by means of the information provided by the Pseudo-Clementine Narrative. Accord�ing to Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Epiphanius, the �patriarch of orthodoxy,� had a positive knowledge of the Ebionites and states that the original Clementines, in some form or another, were connected with them (H. Schoeps, Theology and History of the Jewish Christian, Tubingen, 1949, pp. 457-79)"

from http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/n...part1.html
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 06:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-07-2016 04:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 09:04 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Let's examine this. The following is a statement from Wiki:

"Most experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80-90 AD, although some suggest 90-110, and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

I find the two reasons for a late dating of Luke as listed above as to be very poor reasons.

Firstly, as per previous discussions here we demonstrated that the Gospel of Luke was most probably in existence as the Gospel of Luke before Marcion butchered it, otherwise both Irenaeus and Tertullian would not have Marcion saying that he had altered the Gospel of Luke, and also saying how different Marcion's version was from the version that was widely known as being the official Gospel of Luke.

Therefore, this can be taken as historical evidence to contest the assertion that Marcion's butchered version is what we currently have, or that some of it crept into what we currently have.

Regardless if Marcion butchered it or not, the fact that Marcion names it as the Gospel of Luke pre CE 140 demonstrates it was indeed known as the Gospel of Luke long before that.

The Gospel of Luke came before the Book of Acts, as the author of Acts states, "Act 1:1  The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, which is an obvious statement regarding the Gospel of Luke.

Now the author of Luke, speaking to Theophilus, says something quite revealing at the beginning of his Gospel:

Luk 1:2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

He prefaces his Gospel with an explanation to Theophilus that us he had gathered information regarding Jesus from eyewitnesses contemporary to the time of Jesus. This again indicates that the author of this Gospel of was actually a contemporary.

When we add this evidence to the evidence of a 1st person narrative in Acts, we then have two distinct references to this author being a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul.

Now, because this author is writing of things that happened in the past- as evidenced by his preface in Luke and his story in Acts that leads right up to the time he and Paul were in Rome, the earliest possible date would have to be around CE 63, since he doesn't mention Paul's death.

But let's, for the sake of argument, assign a date closer to CE 70, despite the fact that he doesn't mention Paul's death which should be expected. The reason I would assign this date is because this author would have to be an adult at the time he began traveling with Paul sometime in either the late CE 30s, or early 40s.

If we assign a reasonable young age of 25 years old when this author began traveling with Paul, we could place his date of birth around CE 15. This would then allow us to reason that when he wrote Luke-Acts he would be about 55 years old in AD 70.

But if we date the manuscript to CE 110, it places him at 95 years old, which is about 25 years older than the average life expectancy in those days, and far too old to travel and get this information from the eyewitnesses he says he interviewed. Even we place a date at CE 90, we still have an old man of 75 years old.

Therefore, the textual evidence indicates to me that this author wrote Luke-Acts sometime in the late CE 60s to CE 70.

Remember, this evidence comes from his preface in Luke in which he claims to have interviewed contemporaries of Jesus, and also from Acts where he is seen using a 1st person narrative contemporary to the time of both Paul and Jesus.

If he wrote this in hind-sight- which obviously he did- some 30 - 40 years after his first travels with Paul had taken place, then his 1st person narrative would be based upon his memories from the beginning of his travels with Paul some 30+ years previous. This is plenty of time for his memories to be somewhat faded, which could explain some of the differences between his statements in Acts and Paul's letters. However, this author, at the very least, writes the Book of Acts concerning him and Paul and maintains the general gist of what happened with him and Paul when compared to Paul's letters.

When people look for contradictions between Acts and Paul, are they actually using the proper historical outlook, or are they merely trying to find a means of disputing the authenticity of the work?

This is a big question, because if people have an agenda, then they will only see this the way they want to see it. If they want to question authenticity just because they don't like it, sure they can make the choice to dispute it with the various contradictions.

But if they want to see history, they will not see it through the eyes of either a believer or disbeliever, but rather through the eyes of an unbiased secular historian.

Consider

Ok. I read all that.

I don't buy Luke's "eyewitnesses" spiel...

Some scholars claim Luke the author was the physician and friend of Saint Paul, although most of them admit that they are not sure about this. If this were the case, surely “Luke” would have said so, yet he does not.

Even if the author of Luke did know Paul, that should not qualify him to write about Yeshua’s life, because Paul never met Yeshua, and Paul knew almost nothing about Yeshua.

Luke had a very pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish bias. His Greek is more cultivated and polished than Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke did not include Mark and Matthew’s most Judaic verses. For example, his genealogy of Jesus went back to Adam, the world’s first (fictional) man, whereas Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, the fictional Jewish patriarch. Mark and Matthew named Jesus’ brothers, who all had very Jewish names, whereas Luke did not name them.

Luke claimed that he was writing his Gospel to clear up contentious issues from unnamed other accounts of Jesus’ life. They could include Mark’s (which he was familiar with) and/or Matthew’s, yet he could also be referring to any of the scores of stories about Jesus that were circulating at the time.

Luke wrote:
“Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have taken place among us, exactly as those were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received” (Luke 1:1–5, NJB).

This introduction disqualified the author as a direct witness of Jesus’ life. Luke wrote that “eyewitnesses” handed down information to “us” but does not say who either group was or what they were eyewitnesses to. If these “eyewitnesses” had known Jesus, the author surely would have provided more details. This introduction only
sounds impressive; in reality it does nothing to add to “Luke’s” credibility.

Everything written in Acts and Luke must be read with suspicion. These works are full of miracles that didn't happen. The attempts to denigrate the Jews and Judaism and promote Paul's legitimacy in Acts are pathetic and obviously fabricated. So we cannot take "Luke's" claim that he knew eyewitnesses seriously. It's a lie.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 06:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-07-2016 04:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok. I read all that.

I don't buy Luke's "eyewitnesses" spiel...

If we accept what the author of Luke says to Theophilus at face value, and if we also accept the 1st person narrative in Acts as additional evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable that this author was in the position and time period to have access to eyewitnesses of the personage of Jesus.

It doesn't matter what the eyewitnesses told this author, for if he did speak to eyewitnesses sometime in the C.E 60s, enough time would have gone by for the story regarding Jesus to have been embellished into what we read in that Gospel today.

Quote:Some scholars claim Luke the author was the physician and friend of Saint Paul, although most of them admit that they are not sure about this. If this were the case, surely “Luke” would have said so, yet he does not.

When we look at the traveling companions of Paul, and cross reference them with the 1st persona narrative of the author, we can actually eliminate all companions except one; Luke. For example, for all the others, we see the 1st person narrative being used when the narrative was explaining how others such as Barnabas, Mark, etc were away on some other mission, or it was used before Paul meets up with other companions.

The only one that cannot be eliminated is Luke.

Quote:Even if the author of Luke did know Paul, that should not qualify him to write about Yeshua’s life, because Paul never met Yeshua, and Paul knew almost nothing about Yeshua.

Luke had a very pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish bias. His Greek is more cultivated and polished than Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke did not include Mark and Matthew’s most Judaic verses. For example, his genealogy of Jesus went back to Adam, the world’s first (fictional) man, whereas Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, the fictional Jewish patriarch. Mark and Matthew named Jesus’ brothers, who all had very Jewish names, whereas Luke did not name them.

Luke claimed that he was writing his Gospel to clear up contentious issues from unnamed other accounts of Jesus’ life. They could include Mark’s (which he was familiar with) and/or Matthew’s, yet he could also be referring to any of the scores of stories about Jesus that were circulating at the time.

But it is not a matter of whether or not Luke was qualified to write about Yeshua/Jesus. It is irrelevant to him being a contemporary.

Quote:Luke wrote:
“Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have taken place among us, exactly as those were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received” (Luke 1:1–5, NJB).

This introduction disqualified the author as a direct witness of Jesus’ life. Luke wrote that “eyewitnesses” handed down information to “us” but does not say who either group was or what they were eyewitnesses to. If these “eyewitnesses” had known Jesus, the author surely would have provided more details. This introduction only sounds impressive; in reality it does nothing to add to “Luke’s” credibility.

Again, the author does not make any claims about himself being an eyewitness to Jesus, but only that he interviewed the eyewitnesses to "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." This means that the people he interviewed were eyewitnesses at the beginning of the word ie; the gospel as spoken by Jesus himself.

But don't get caught up in that, because it is irrelevant if they were actually eyewitnesses or not. What is relevant here is that the author says he interviewed them, which indicates that the author himself was a contemporary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 06:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-07-2016 06:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 04:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok. I read all that.

I don't buy Luke's "eyewitnesses" spiel...

If we accept what the author of Luke says to Theophilus at face value, and if we also accept the 1st person narrative in Acts as additional evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable that this author was in the position and time period to have access to eyewitnesses of the personage of Jesus.

It doesn't matter what the eyewitnesses told this author, for if he did speak to eyewitnesses sometime in the C.E 60s, enough time would have gone by for the story regarding Jesus to have been embellished into what we read in that Gospel today.

Quote:Some scholars claim Luke the author was the physician and friend of Saint Paul, although most of them admit that they are not sure about this. If this were the case, surely “Luke” would have said so, yet he does not.

When we look at the traveling companions of Paul, and cross reference them with the 1st persona narrative of the author, we can actually eliminate all companions except one; Luke. For example, for all the others, we see the 1st person narrative being used when the narrative was explaining how others such as Barnabas, Mark, etc were away on some other mission, or it was used before Paul meets up with other companions.

The only one that cannot be eliminated is Luke.

Quote:Even if the author of Luke did know Paul, that should not qualify him to write about Yeshua’s life, because Paul never met Yeshua, and Paul knew almost nothing about Yeshua.

Luke had a very pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish bias. His Greek is more cultivated and polished than Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke did not include Mark and Matthew’s most Judaic verses. For example, his genealogy of Jesus went back to Adam, the world’s first (fictional) man, whereas Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, the fictional Jewish patriarch. Mark and Matthew named Jesus’ brothers, who all had very Jewish names, whereas Luke did not name them.

Luke claimed that he was writing his Gospel to clear up contentious issues from unnamed other accounts of Jesus’ life. They could include Mark’s (which he was familiar with) and/or Matthew’s, yet he could also be referring to any of the scores of stories about Jesus that were circulating at the time.

But it is not a matter of whether or not Luke was qualified to write about Yeshua/Jesus. It is irrelevant to him being a contemporary.

Quote:Luke wrote:
“Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have taken place among us, exactly as those were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received” (Luke 1:1–5, NJB).

This introduction disqualified the author as a direct witness of Jesus’ life. Luke wrote that “eyewitnesses” handed down information to “us” but does not say who either group was or what they were eyewitnesses to. If these “eyewitnesses” had known Jesus, the author surely would have provided more details. This introduction only sounds impressive; in reality it does nothing to add to “Luke’s” credibility.

Again, the author does not make any claims about himself being an eyewitness to Jesus, but only that he interviewed the eyewitnesses to "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." This means that the people he interviewed were eyewitnesses at the beginning of the word ie; the gospel as spoken by Jesus himself.

But don't get caught up in that, because it is irrelevant if they were actually eyewitnesses or not. What is relevant here is that the author says he interviewed them, which indicates that the author himself was a contemporary.

Ok. I read all that. I just happen to believe the author of Luke was lying about him having talked to "eyewitnesses"

Also, consider the following. I'm not sure that there's any good evidence that anyone was talking about Paul's writings until Marcion introduced them to Rome in the 140s. This would, of necessity, place the authorship of Acts after this time, because the central theme of Acts really was an attempt to link the writings of Paul with an historical Jesus, as well as make out that the followers of Jesus became great mates with Paul.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 07:12 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 07:17 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-07-2016 06:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 04:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok. I read all that.

I don't buy Luke's "eyewitnesses" spiel...

If we accept what the author of Luke says to Theophilus at face value, and if we also accept the 1st person narrative in Acts as additional evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable that this author was in the position and time period to have access to eyewitnesses of the personage of Jesus.

It doesn't matter what the eyewitnesses told this author, for if he did speak to eyewitnesses sometime in the C.E 60s, enough time would have gone by for the story regarding Jesus to have been embellished into what we read in that Gospel today.

Quote:Some scholars claim Luke the author was the physician and friend of Saint Paul, although most of them admit that they are not sure about this. If this were the case, surely “Luke” would have said so, yet he does not.

When we look at the traveling companions of Paul, and cross reference them with the 1st persona narrative of the author, we can actually eliminate all companions except one; Luke. For example, for all the others, we see the 1st person narrative being used when the narrative was explaining how others such as Barnabas, Mark, etc were away on some other mission, or it was used before Paul meets up with other companions.

The only one that cannot be eliminated is Luke.

Quote:Even if the author of Luke did know Paul, that should not qualify him to write about Yeshua’s life, because Paul never met Yeshua, and Paul knew almost nothing about Yeshua.

Luke had a very pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish bias. His Greek is more cultivated and polished than Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke did not include Mark and Matthew’s most Judaic verses. For example, his genealogy of Jesus went back to Adam, the world’s first (fictional) man, whereas Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, the fictional Jewish patriarch. Mark and Matthew named Jesus’ brothers, who all had very Jewish names, whereas Luke did not name them.

Luke claimed that he was writing his Gospel to clear up contentious issues from unnamed other accounts of Jesus’ life. They could include Mark’s (which he was familiar with) and/or Matthew’s, yet he could also be referring to any of the scores of stories about Jesus that were circulating at the time.

But it is not a matter of whether or not Luke was qualified to write about Yeshua/Jesus. It is irrelevant to him being a contemporary.

Quote:Luke wrote:
“Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have taken place among us, exactly as those were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received” (Luke 1:1–5, NJB).

This introduction disqualified the author as a direct witness of Jesus’ life. Luke wrote that “eyewitnesses” handed down information to “us” but does not say who either group was or what they were eyewitnesses to. If these “eyewitnesses” had known Jesus, the author surely would have provided more details. This introduction only sounds impressive; in reality it does nothing to add to “Luke’s” credibility.

Again, the author does not make any claims about himself being an eyewitness to Jesus, but only that he interviewed the eyewitnesses to "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." This means that the people he interviewed were eyewitnesses at the beginning of the word ie; the gospel as spoken by Jesus himself.

But don't get caught up in that, because it is irrelevant if they were actually eyewitnesses or not. What is relevant here is that the author says he interviewed them, which indicates that the author himself was a contemporary.

Let's pause and think.

Why da fuck couldn't the author of Luke step up to the mark like nearly every other author of the time and write something like...

"My name is Luke. I am the author of this work. I received my information from X, Y and Z, and they knew Jesus because A, B and C."

No, that would be giving too many facts away.

Why couldn't the author of Acts write...

"my name is Luke. I wrote the previous Book, the gospel of Luke. I was a travelling companion of Paul."

But no, in typical Christian fashion, the author is essentially anonymous, and the reader has to guess who he was and where he got his facts from.

It is very obvious all these writing have been made up by parties divorced from the action, by early Christians trying to create a cult. They drop little hints here and there to try and bolster their legitimacy, but not enough to let any facts be checked out.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 07:24 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(29-07-2016 06:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 04:21 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok. I read all that.

I don't buy Luke's "eyewitnesses" spiel...

If we accept what the author of Luke says to Theophilus at face value, and if we also accept the 1st person narrative in Acts as additional evidence, then it is perfectly reasonable to accept as probable that this author was in the position and time period to have access to eyewitnesses of the personage of Jesus.

It doesn't matter what the eyewitnesses told this author, for if he did speak to eyewitnesses sometime in the C.E 60s, enough time would have gone by for the story regarding Jesus to have been embellished into what we read in that Gospel today.

Quote:Some scholars claim Luke the author was the physician and friend of Saint Paul, although most of them admit that they are not sure about this. If this were the case, surely “Luke” would have said so, yet he does not.

When we look at the traveling companions of Paul, and cross reference them with the 1st persona narrative of the author, we can actually eliminate all companions except one; Luke. For example, for all the others, we see the 1st person narrative being used when the narrative was explaining how others such as Barnabas, Mark, etc were away on some other mission, or it was used before Paul meets up with other companions.

The only one that cannot be eliminated is Luke.

Quote:Even if the author of Luke did know Paul, that should not qualify him to write about Yeshua’s life, because Paul never met Yeshua, and Paul knew almost nothing about Yeshua.

Luke had a very pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish bias. His Greek is more cultivated and polished than Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke did not include Mark and Matthew’s most Judaic verses. For example, his genealogy of Jesus went back to Adam, the world’s first (fictional) man, whereas Matthew’s genealogy goes back to Abraham, the fictional Jewish patriarch. Mark and Matthew named Jesus’ brothers, who all had very Jewish names, whereas Luke did not name them.

Luke claimed that he was writing his Gospel to clear up contentious issues from unnamed other accounts of Jesus’ life. They could include Mark’s (which he was familiar with) and/or Matthew’s, yet he could also be referring to any of the scores of stories about Jesus that were circulating at the time.

But it is not a matter of whether or not Luke was qualified to write about Yeshua/Jesus. It is irrelevant to him being a contemporary.

Quote:Luke wrote:
“Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events that have taken place among us, exactly as those were handed down to us by those who from the outset were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I in my turn, after carefully going over the whole story from the beginning, have decided to write an ordered account for you, Theophilus, so that your Excellency may learn how well founded the teaching is that you have received” (Luke 1:1–5, NJB).

This introduction disqualified the author as a direct witness of Jesus’ life. Luke wrote that “eyewitnesses” handed down information to “us” but does not say who either group was or what they were eyewitnesses to. If these “eyewitnesses” had known Jesus, the author surely would have provided more details. This introduction only sounds impressive; in reality it does nothing to add to “Luke’s” credibility.

Again, the author does not make any claims about himself being an eyewitness to Jesus, but only that he interviewed the eyewitnesses to "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." This means that the people he interviewed were eyewitnesses at the beginning of the word ie; the gospel as spoken by Jesus himself.

But don't get caught up in that, because it is irrelevant if they were actually eyewitnesses or not. What is relevant here is that the author says he interviewed them, which indicates that the author himself was a contemporary.

I happen to think it's very relevant whether the author of Luke talked to eyewitnesses or not. Not that I, personally, take any of these writings seriously, but there are Christians who do, and I don't like what Christianity has done to my world. If Christians everywhere were somehow to wake up to the fact how fabricated the nonsense they believe is, then the world will be a better place.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: