(April 23, 2016 at 10:54 am)abaris Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 10:51 am)dyresand Wrote: But even then this is bronze age a lot of people were claiming to be prophets to some sort of god and claim the world is going to end.

Bronze age was over for about a thousand years by then.

But you know what i mean a lot of crazy people claiming to be prophets even in this day and age

(April 23, 2016 at 8:36 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 22, 2016 at 11:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I read the book.  I was unimpressed.

Why?  That Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher seems to fit all of the historical evidences.

And bingo.  There you have the problem.  There is no "historical" evidence.  There is only later written and heavily edited bible bullshit.  And no one knows that better than Bart Ehrman who has made a career out of trashing that shit.

(April 23, 2016 at 9:47 am)abaris Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 9:45 am)Drich Wrote: What are you talking about Luke (of the book of Luke and Acts) is Paul's understudy. (we know this because Luke Himself places himself as a disciple of Paul in the book of Acts.) Luke knew nothing of Christ, as he was a servant to a man many think lived in Rome at the time of Christ. to write a gospel of Jesus means Luke studied under someone who knew Jesus was God. That would be Paul. In essence Luke's Gospel is the Gospel of Paul.

And the scientific evidence for that would be what exactly? I mean, as in historical or archeological facts. Not bible proving bible.

Forget that I asked. There is none.

Hey slomo, In that time frame, regarding any social structure what Luke or anyone else wrote that can be corroborated it EVIDENCE!

(April 23, 2016 at 10:42 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 9:45 am)Drich Wrote: What are you talking about Luke (of the book of Luke and Acts) is Paul's understudy. (we know this because Luke Himself places himself as a disciple of Paul in the book of Acts.) Luke knew nothing of Christ, as he was a servant to a man many think lived in Rome at the time of Christ. to write a gospel of Jesus means Luke studied under someone who knew Jesus was God. That would be Paul. In essence Luke's Gospel is the Gospel of Paul.

Most scholars do not hold to this view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_...p_and_date

cute effort but no.

What you did there was not provide 'what most scholars view' you provided what one wiki page had to say.

There are two basic views held by scholars. The traditional view and the Critical view. Even in most innerations of the critical view authorship of both the book of luke and Acts is attributed to the same author. As the book of acts speaks from an eye witness perspective the point I made stands.

(April 24, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 9:47 am)abaris Wrote: And the scientific evidence for that would be what exactly? I mean, as in historical or archeological facts. Not bible proving bible.

Forget that I asked. There is none.

Hey slomo, In that time frame, regarding any social structure what Luke or anyone else wrote that can be corroborated it EVIDENCE!

No.  It's propaganda, dripshit.  I realize you don't know the difference nor do you wish to know.

Quote:both the book of luke and Acts is attributed to the same author.

Marcion?


I bet you don't want to go there, dripshit.

(April 24, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Hey slomo, In that time frame, regarding any social structure what Luke or anyone else wrote that can be corroborated it EVIDENCE!

No.

(April 24, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 9:47 am)abaris Wrote: And the scientific evidence for that would be what exactly? I mean, as in historical or archeological facts. Not bible proving bible.

Forget that I asked. There is none.

Hey slomo, In that time frame, regarding any social structure what Luke or anyone else wrote that can be corroborated it EVIDENCE!

Translated means:




It's the same ol' same ol' with Drich.  Millions of Christians disagree with his often heretical ideas ... yet somehow, his opinion is never flawed and his "evidence"
is plain for all to see ... well, those who WANT to see it.  

Arrogant, gullible and brainwashed. 




On a side rant:

I'm so fucking sick of this god damn jesus disease.  The world is finally tearing itself apart thanks to this fucking desert god stupidity. 
When the FUCK will it be enough??  When will the idiots of this world finally wake up and realize these shitty christards and their offspring, the islamaturds have
brought us nothing but suffering and darkness. I'm so fucking sick of seeing you assholes on the news - so proud to wallow in your own
sanctimonious buffoonery.

Will you people please stop ruining our fucking planet!  We're all sick of it.

/rant

(April 24, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 23, 2016 at 10:42 am)Jehanne Wrote: Most scholars do not hold to this view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_...p_and_date

cute effort but no.

What you did there was not provide 'what most scholars view' you provided what one wiki page had to say.

There are two basic views held by scholars. The traditional view and the Critical view. Even in most innerations of the critical view authorship of both the book of luke and Acts is attributed to the same author. As the book of acts speaks from an eye witness perspective the point I made stands.

No, most scholars date Luke as being composed between 80 AD to 130 AD:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

(April 24, 2016 at 5:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No, most scholars date Luke as being composed between 80 AD to 130 AD:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

And even if they didn't. The most glaring mistake Ehrman makes, for example, is presenting ancient history in the same way as contemporary history. History back then wasn't anything like what we understand today. It was out to present an ideal or a warning. It wasn't based on real facts.