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.
You know full well that those are the only three accounts. The issue then is whether you are willing to believe those accounts. And you aren't willing as you have made clear over and over.
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.
You are right. I know very well that Paul does not endorse those stories anywhere. Given that Luke is a pretty cavalier inventor and adapter of his material, both in his gospel and in Acts, I think we can say he invented this account himself.
You are right. I know very well that Paul does not endorse those stories anywhere. Given that Luke is a pretty cavalier inventor and adapter of his material, both in his gospel and in Acts, I think we can say he invented this account himself.
You've already been shown that your claim that Luke lied about why Paul escaped from Damascus is false. And you do not know that Paul does not endorse Luke's writings. You merely have an opinion.
Glad to. hang on... the misbegotten explanation for the unborn John kicking is enough to discredit his as 'Dr.' Luke. The absurd claim that Joseph had to trek dragging his (near term) wife along to his ancestral city to sign on for a tax that didn't apply to him discredits him as a historian.
8.26 the misdirected referring to the 'Gerasenes' which he places opposite Galilee, which he has confused with Gadara (which was opposite Galilee on the East side of Lake Galilee) he refers to Jerash a town miles away and to the south east is enough to discredit him as a Geographer, even if the ludicrously vague 17.12 'passing along between Galilee and Samaria' (like a New Yorker passing along between the USA and Canada to get to Washington) didn't make that pretty clear.
need coffeee... back in I hr.
I beg your pardon, changing the reason that Paul had to escape (which is nonsense in itself (1) to a need to escape the Jews, who were plotting to kill him, looks pretty much like a barefaced lie to me.
But perhaps you overlooked Paul's remark that the governor of the army of the Nabatean king Aretas wa guarding the city in order to seize Paul.
I already showed in post #138 why Luke does not contradict Paul, and that he did not change the facts.
Quote:
(1) Aretas took advantage of the death of Tiberius to send his general to invade Syria and snaffle Damascus (36 -37 A.D). He couldn't have cared less about seizing Christians, let alone Paul.
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.
The Bible, as literature, is certainly an historical book which records historical events. Historians recognize this, your opinion not withstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Actually, modern historians do not.
Where the bible matches history, it is only accidental.
Well, you might want to inform Bart Ehrman of that because he is under the impression that the Bible must be regarded as historical. I made a point of mentioning this in post #42. The following is from that post.
'While that is your opinion, it is not the opinion held by the majority of scholars and historians who study the matter. Bart Ehrman who is an agnostic, and who doesn't believe that everything in the Gospels is historical, nevertheless states that the Gospels are, and must be considered as historical sources of information. Quoting Ehrman;
''The Gospels are filled with nonhistorical material, accounts of events that could not have happened.''
''At the same time, there is historical information in the Gospels.''
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''
''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.''
[Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Ehrman, pp. 71-73.]
Now, concerning the existence of an historical Jesus, Ehrman has this to say;
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.
[Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman, p. 12] '
The fact is that many modern historians do regard the Bible as historical even though secular scholars and historians may not regard everything that is in the Bible as historical.
And if you happen to be a mythicist, that is, if you don't believe that an historical Jesus existed, note that Ehrman stated that it is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet that Jesus did exist, and that he was crucified during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-22-2015 at 04:24 PM..
Literature, in its broadest sense.
But that is not its sole purpose.
Did I say that it is its sole purpose? No, I did not. I said merely that the Bible as literature is historical. And it must be considered as such because Christianity is based on historical events.
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.
Is the New Testament historically accurate?
