(April 3, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 2, 2019 at 9:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Early Christian Writings

http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html this only concludes that mark is the popular 1st author of the NT, and what worse the evidence is based on everything but content and the times line provided in scripture it self. Because if you read what is in the bible, the bible itself point to luke as being the primary author as he showed up within 10 years of Christ death, was sent for the express purpose of recording everything he could about Christ and sent it back to his master theophilus. who commissioned the work. this would have happened 40 to 50 ad.marks works are some times cited as early as 70 ad. we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times and luke we know to be the author of acts which end abruptly in late 50 AD.. by the time luke took upon the writing of the acts of the apostles his work in the book of luke had to be done because at the time of acts he was no longer in the service of theophilus but in the service of the apostle paul. Meaning all of the first person tesimony luke records in the book of acts happen in real time sometime before Paul's final journey to rome decades before mark put pen to page.

If any of you ever bother to read the bible, the time lines sort themselves out clearly. but you let other people tll you what is in the bible and you figure they are right because the interwebs says so.

How about read the bible yourelf and discuss what you have read, just like i did above!

The same "Luke" who said that Quirinius was governor of Syria:

Wikipedia -- Census of Quirinius

Magic book says alot of shit that noone wants their name attached to.  Acts is just flat out disregarded as history .

Man, we're learning alot about how those scholars got it all wrong. Cant help but wonder what other pooches they've been screwing.

(April 3, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote: we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times

Problem with that argument is that Paul mostly mentions Luke in Deutero-Paulines and Pseudo-Paulines, meaning not written by Paul but forgeries - so there is no point talking about them.

Now, Paul does mention certain Luke in one of, what is considered, his works and that is Epistle to Philemon 1:23–24, but it only says that some Luke along with Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas, is said to be sending his greetings to Philemon, there is no reason to put much trust of who that Luke was. Not to mention that nowhere in Acts or Luke does the author claim to be a companion of Paul and if that Luke was with Paul and Paul's student he probably wouldn't disagree with Paul's theology, either.

(April 4, 2019 at 8:16 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote: we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times

Problem with that argument is that Paul mostly mentions Luke in Deutero-Paulines and Pseudo-Paulines, meaning not written by Paul but forgeries - so there is no point talking about them.

Now, Paul does mention certain Luke in one of, what is considered, his works and that is Epistle to Philemon 1:23–24, but it only says that some Luke along with Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas, is said to be sending his greetings to Philemon, there is no reason to put much trust of who that Luke was. Not to mention that nowhere in Acts or Luke does the author claim to be a companion of Paul and if that Luke was with Paul and Paul's student he probably wouldn't disagree with Paul's theology, either.

Never read the book of acts have you? 

If you had you would see a professionalism almost a duty to history up until the point where Luke begin to describe who paul is up until his planning of his mission trip to Rome where the book ends but history shows he was executed. In the introduction of Paul there is far too much day to day knowledge for luke to be an observer or passer by. Luke from his detailed account in acts conclusively shows he knew paul or was a companion of paul. Not to mention Luke's work here in acts establishes who this man is by being able to record his thoughts fears and aspirations. again look at the beginning of the book of acts and luke does not pretend to assume to know what peter feels or thinks. However with paul his whole person is displayed on page.

Not to mention where or the source material of Luke's gospel, Many believe luke's gospel to be the gospel of Paul because of his closeness to him and subsequent service to paul after his commission to theopliphus was complete. which by any account put the bookof luke first by decades because again the book of luke need be completed before he was allowed to record the book of acts. Like it or not pretend it is not in the bible all you want but the staunch truth is Paul does indeed identify luke specifically which is not a hebrew name, it is a rare name as it describes an italian district. Not just in the philomone letter but his letter to timothy, and in colossians which of the 3 sources is the only one contested, and by contested content is not being contested but who physically wrote the letter. Paul himself admits to using dictation/scribes to pen down his teaching or letters because of failing eyesight. (thorn in the flesh) the content is not in question because the letters meet all the other criteria of an authentically written epistle.

in essence all the stuff I said luke included as in the way of thoughts and feelings of paul which is an ear mark of paul's direct hand in writting is missing in the disputed letters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

Which if you are going to argue the disputed letters of paul you must accept why they are disupted which again only strengthens the case I am making for the record of luke in acts,which btw is another form of disputing the letters of which paul was supposed to have written like thess book 3 this was not i the bible because Luke records Pauls doing something else at the time this letter was supposed to been written.

Again which point to the book of luke having to have been completed before any of his work in acts which point even futher back

It is precisely by reading acts that those scholars whose consensus you selectively value determined that acts was a legendary narrative meant to solve a theological problem - not a history.

Any comment as to the primacy of acts or it's author amounts to nothing more or less than an assertion that the christian religion began as a story. The mythicist position, hilariously.

(April 3, 2019 at 10:12 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote: http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html this only concludes that mark is the popular 1st author of the NT, and what worse the evidence is based on everything but content and the times line provided in scripture it self. Because if you read what is in the bible, the bible itself point to luke as being the primary author as he showed up within 10 years of Christ death, was sent for the express purpose of recording everything he could about Christ and sent it back to his master theophilus. who commissioned the work. this would have happened 40 to 50 ad.marks works are some times cited as early as 70 ad. we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times and luke we know to be the author of acts which end abruptly in late 50 AD.. by the time luke took upon the writing of the acts of the apostles his work in the book of luke had to be done because at the time of acts he was no longer in the service of theophilus but in the service of the apostle paul. Meaning all of the first person tesimony luke records in the book of acts happen in real time sometime before Paul's final journey to rome decades before mark put pen to page.

If any of you ever bother to read the bible, the time lines sort themselves out clearly. but you let other people tll you what is in the bible and you figure they are right because the interwebs says so.

How about read the bible yourelf and discuss what you have read, just like i did above!

The same "Luke" who said that Quirinius was governor of Syria:

Wikipedia -- Census of Quirinius

2 It was about that same time that Augustus Caesar sent out an order to all people in the countries that were under Roman rule. The order said that everyone’s name must be put on a list. 2 This was the first counting of all the people while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 Everyone traveled to their own hometowns to have their name put on the list.

yes that luke.

You do understand John the baptist was indeed older than Jesus,and chapter 1 describes John's birth while at the same tie john grew up and moved out into the wilderness, the events of chapter two took place which gives plenty of time for the change in power.

---

(April 4, 2019 at 9:45 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: It is precisely by reading acts that those scholars whose consensus you selectively value determined that acts was a legendary narrative meant to solve a theological problem - not a history.

Any comment as to the primacy of acts or it's author amounts to nothing more or less than an assertion that the christian religion began as a story.  The mythicist position, hilariously.

citation please.

because I just left a citation that speaks to the exact opposite of what you just said. not only that it (book of acts) can be used as a historical reference, that scrutinizes the authorship of the pauline epistles. the book of acts has indeed been used as a historical anchor for the events and recording of major events in that region at that time other secular historians have also confirmed what the book of acts records.

Meaning you can't have it both ways. either you use the book of acts a some  sort of the key, to scrutinize elements to determine historical plausibility on the authentication of a epistle of Paul or you must accept Paul's epistle as it's primary detractor is now been disqualified itself.

that aside my primary point stands.

If one used the bible as apart of the equation to determine which gospel came first the the book of luke can be the only answer.

Find them yourself..the last time you asked for citations and got them you dismissed them for batshit reasons and then proceeded exactly as you would have in their absence.

Magic book is what was used to determine which of it's chapters came first (part of the problem, really), and the consensus of scholars that you selectively value says that you're wrong, while the hypothesis you present is precisely the sort of thing that mythicists posit. A series of theologically important myths and fables later taken to be legendary or historical anecdotes.

(April 4, 2019 at 9:38 am)Drich Wrote: If you had you would see a professionalism almost a duty to history up until the point where Luke begin to describe who paul is up until his planning of his mission trip to Rome where the book ends but history shows he was executed. In the introduction of Paul there is far too much day to day knowledge for luke to be an observer or passer by. Luke from his detailed account in acts conclusively shows he knew paul or was a companion of paul.

Lol! It's just the opposite! Writer of Acts makes a number of biographical errors and theological points are held to conflict with what Paul says in his letters. For example, Paul says in Gal. 1:15–18 that he did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles after his conversion experience; Acts 9:10–30 says that he did. Likewise, in Romans 1:18–23, Paul says that idol worshipers are without excuse because knowledge of God has always been evident, but Acts 17:29–30 portrays Paul as saying God will overlook the worship of idols as a consequence of ignorance.

(April 4, 2019 at 10:04 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 3, 2019 at 10:12 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The same "Luke" who said that Quirinius was governor of Syria:

Wikipedia -- Census of Quirinius

2 It was about that same time that Augustus Caesar sent out an order to all people in the countries that were under Roman rule. The order said that everyone’s name must be put on a list. 2 This was the first counting of all the people while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 Everyone traveled to their own hometowns to have their name put on the list.

yes that luke.

You do understand John the baptist was indeed older than Jesus,and chapter 1 describes John's birth while at the same tie john grew up and moved out into the wilderness, the events of chapter two took place which gives plenty of time for the change in power.

---

Did you even read the Wikipedia article?  The author of the Gospel of Luke made an historical blunder.  It would like someone claiming that Woodrow Wilson was President prior to Teddy Roosevelt.

(April 5, 2019 at 3:07 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 4, 2019 at 10:04 am)Drich Wrote: 2 It was about that same time that Augustus Caesar sent out an order to all people in the countries that were under Roman rule. The order said that everyone’s name must be put on a list. 2 This was the first counting of all the people while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 Everyone traveled to their own hometowns to have their name put on the list.

yes that luke.

You do understand John the baptist was indeed older than Jesus,and chapter 1 describes John's birth while at the same tie john grew up and moved out into the wilderness, the events of chapter two took place which gives plenty of time for the change in power.

---

Did you even read the Wikipedia article?  The author of the Gospel of Luke made an historical blunder.  It would like someone claiming that Woodrow Wilson was President prior to Teddy Roosevelt.

That is the perception yes, but I showed you how it is not a blunder but a miss reading and mis conception of what the passage is describing.

Again chapter 1 describes John birth which includes herod the great. John was born first and could be between 4 and 6 years old. Chapter two descibes the birth of jesus some time later.