Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Jehanne]

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

[Drich]

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Drich]

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

[Jehanne]

[Drich]

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.