|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:09:03 [Permalink]
|
The reason I can use the N.T. as evidence is:first, it claims to be such"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us by those who from the first WERE EYEWITNESSES...Therefore,since I[luke]myself have CAREULLY INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING ";secondly,the N.T.is the most well documented historical text of ancient history(i.e, I'm sure you all are aware of the comparison between Plato,the Illiad ect..);finaly ,my kids love me also(and so does Jesus) goodby for now gotta go 
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:43:28 [Permalink]
|
The reason I can use the N.T. as evidence is:first, it claims to be such"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us by those who from the first WERE EYEWITNESSES...Therefore,since I[luke]myself have CAREULLY INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING ";
Since you asked so nicely, I did a web search for Luke
Holy Books > New Testament > Luke > Chapter 1
1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
So she is saying that she knows somebody who knew somebody, who...
She doesn't say that she is an eyewitness. She doesn't even say that she knows an eyewitness. She just say that there were eyewitnesses, but no names.
J.k. Rowling says much the same thing about Harry Potter.
And where did you get that part that she was I[luke]myself have CAREULLY INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING? How, pray tell, was she conducting an investagation?
secondly,the N.T.is the most well documented historical text of ancient history(i.e, I'm sure you all are aware of the comparison between Plato,the Illiad ect..)
Yes, it doesn't compare favorably at all. You can actually prove beyond a resonable doubt that there was a Plato, and a Troy. You can't do the same thing with Jesus.
;finaly ,my kids love me also(and so does Jesus) goodby for now gotta go
I'm sure that your kids are fond of you but if you are a gentile then Jesus said "they are dogs and I will have no traffic with them."
Nope DA--Jesus hates you.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Fist hand? You're kidding right?
So a Christian did his own investigation and found all that stuff to be true? Hey that sounds reliable. We also should have let OJ Simpson investigate his ex-wife's murder. NOT!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 03:34:45 [Permalink]
|
As far as good o Dr. Luke bias of being Christian hindering his through reasearch into the 1st century NT world check out Sir William Ramsey's St Paul Roman Traveler(Ramsey began his study as a "Skeptic" of Luke's reliabilty as a Historian but later changed his mind),Also aren't the scientist you quote "Believers in EVOLUTION"? Does that fact impinge their integrity as scientist ?
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 03:46:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Also aren't the scientist you quote "Believers in EVOLUTION"? Does that fact impinge their integrity as scientist ?
No they don't believe in evolution.
The accept evolution, natural selection and common descent as the best explanation for the diversity of life.
This until a better explanation appears.
"A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45"
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 03:48:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Ramsey began his study as a "Skeptic" of Luke's reliabilty as a Historian but later changed his mind),
Good for him. I began as a Christian but later changed my mind. So did most on this board. We have at least proven our openness to evidence.
I'm still assuming you believe Geoffrey of Monmouth because he fits your standards even better than Luke.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 06:19:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Also aren't the scientist you quote "Believers in EVOLUTION"?
Look at my signature.
Calling evolution a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 07:36:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote]
Look at my signature.
Calling evolution a religion is like calling baldness a hair color.
Or calling health a disease.
"A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45"
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 11:32:35 [Permalink]
|
 The objection you raised was that because Luke was christian he is not a reliable source for information as to both the existence, and message of Jesus.My question to y'all is if a scientist "ACCEPTS"evolution as the best explanation for how we arrived here,does that automaticly invalidate all his or hers writings?Of corse not!Then by the same logic neither does Luke's presuppositions
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 12:19:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The objection you raised was that because Luke was christian he is not a reliable source for information as to both the existence, and message of Jesus.My question to y'all is if a scientist "ACCEPTS"evolution as the best explanation for how we arrived here,does that automaticly invalidate all his or hers writings?Of corse not!Then by the same logic neither does Luke's presuppositions
No that is not the same thing. You are making an enormous error in thinking of evolution as a belief. Christianity is a belief, science is a method for finding answers. Scientists look at facts to try to find answers. Their belief is in their method and not the outcome. Having a Christian investigate Christ's existence is a whole other story. You can't tell me a Christian trying to sell people on his book isn't biased. Puh-leeeeze.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 13:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The objection you raised was that because Luke was christian he is not a reliable source for information as to both the existence, and message of Jesus.My question to y'all is if a scientist "ACCEPTS"evolution as the best explanation for how we arrived here,does that automaticly invalidate all his or hers writings?Of corse not!Then by the same logic neither does Luke's presuppositions
No, Luke isn't reliable because, IIRC, there is extrabiblical evidence that suggests Luke wasn't written in its entirety by Luke. I think Slater would be the one to ask about this. I'm not sure what Luke's presuppositions have to do with it; chances are he wasn't a Christian before his alleged writings about Christ. I'm really not sure why this is analagous to science. All the scientist does is logically assemble existing facts, stuff essentially accessible to anyone.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 16:02:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The objection you raised was that because Luke was christian he is not a reliable source for information as to both the existence, and message of Jesus.My question to y'all is if a scientist "ACCEPTS"evolution as the best explanation for how we arrived here,does that automaticly invalidate all his or hers writings?Of corse not!Then by the same logic neither does Luke's presuppositions
No, Luke isn't reliable because, IIRC, there is extrabiblical evidence that suggests Luke wasn't written in its entirety by Luke. I think Slater would be the one to ask about this. I'm not sure what Luke's presuppositions have to do with it; chances are he wasn't a Christian before his alleged writings about Christ. I'm really not sure why this is analagous to science. All the scientist does is logically assemble existing facts, stuff essentially accessible to anyone.
This signature does not exist.
Ahh, but the crux of it is, the scientists must also be willing to set aside his/her preconceived notions in the face of overwhelming evidence. Theists tend to deny or ignore the evidence.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 19:25:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
The objection you raised was that because Luke was christian he is not a reliable source for information as to both the existence, and message of Jesus.My question to y'all is if a scientist "ACCEPTS"evolution as the best explanation for how we arrived here,does that automaticly invalidate all his or hers writings?Of corse not!Then by the same logic neither does Luke's presuppositions
No, Luke isn't reliable because, IIRC, there is extrabiblical evidence that suggests Luke wasn't written in its entirety by Luke. I think Slater would be the one to ask about this. I'm not sure what Luke's presuppositions have to do with it; chances are he wasn't a Christian before his alleged writings about Christ. I'm really not sure why this is analagous to science. All the scientist does is logically assemble existing facts, stuff essentially accessible to anyone.
This signature does not exist.
Ahh, but the crux of it is, the scientists must also be willing to set aside his/her preconceived notions in the face of overwhelming evidence. Theists tend to deny or ignore the evidence.
Or they mess with it until it suits their beliefs/ideas/theories. Oy vay.
quote:
quote:
Look at my signature.
Calling evolution a religion is like calling baldness a hair color.
Or calling health a disease.
 
"Hey Butt-Head check this book out! There's a talking snake, a naked chick, then some guy puts a leaf on his SCHLONG!!" [Beavis and Butt-Head Do America]
Edited by - James on 10/26/2001 19:27:41 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2001 : 11:59:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Ahh, but the crux of it is, the scientists must also be willing to set aside his/her preconceived notions in the face of overwhelming evidence. Theists tend to deny or ignore the evidence.
Or they mess with it until it suits their beliefs/ideas/theories. Oy vay.
Point taken, however, the great thing about science, or more specifically scientists, is that once a theory or conclusion gets into peer review it no longer has the comfort zone afforded it by its proponents. One can almost as easily make a name debunking findings as promoting them. It's really not that hard to spot biases once you know what to look for.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2001 : 19:46:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, Luke isn't reliable because, IIRC, there is extrabiblical evidence that suggests Luke wasn't written in its entirety by Luke. I think Slater would be the one to ask about this. I'm not sure what Luke's presuppositions have to do with it; chances are he wasn't a Christian before his alleged writings about Christ.
And you may have noticed Slater's referring to Luke as "she".
Check out Randel Helm's "Who Wrote the Gospels". His argument for why Luke was probably a woman is quite interesting!
(Slater, when you recommended Helms to me, I didn't realize I had already read this work by him. Got it because of a full page ad in Skeptic magazine. Good stuff...)
------------
Victory Not Vengeance |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
