Religion can make you a better person?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm quite critical of religion. It makes two sort of people, depressed ones and self-righteous jerks who think they're better than everyone else.

Right! See? We can agree on some things!


The issue between you and me is that you believe the 'scriptures' to be inerrant and authentic, and I don't.
edit on 7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


No, pseudographical would mean written by a person claiming to he someone else. Thomas and Mary were written by Gnostics then given names of credible Christians that the author didn't have on their own merits.

Thomas wasn't written by Thomas and Mary wasn't written by Mary. Those letters appeared in human history after both Thomas and Mary were dead.

With that said, we've traveled far enough down this rabbit trail. None of this has anything to do with the topic and I suggest we not go any mote off topic.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm quite critical of religion. It makes two sort of people, depressed ones and self-righteous jerks who think they're better than everyone else.

Right! See? We can agree on some things!


The issue between you and me is that you believe the 'scriptures' to be inerrant and authentic, and I don't.
edit on 7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


I believe they are in the originals, not the translations. The errors of translation are well know by scholars.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Those letters appeared in human history after both Thomas and Mary were dead.

And so did the "Gospels" appear in human history after Jesus was dead! And were written by
"God-knows-who," anonymously, and 'later attributed' to the four. You have no proof that the people who wrote the Gospels were who "it is said they were". And you are incorrect in thinking they all knew Jesus personally.

But, you are right insofar as this is the end of our trail here today.
Take care, friend.
edit on 7-2-2013 by wildtimes because: clarity



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
No, it was written by Christ's apostles...


No it wasn't written by Jesus' apostles. Have you ever looked at the similarities between Luke and Plutarch?

Paul even mentions a certain "Lucius" in Romans 16:21, which so happened to be Plutarch's Roman name. Plutarch was not a physician. There are a lot of people who aren't who they appear to be in the bible.

Also, Plutarch never wrote about Jesus even though he lived in the time directly after his death. *hint hint*
edit on 7-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


That same Paul refers to him as "Luke the beloved physician" in three epistles.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I know, which calls into question why a historian (Plutarch) has so much in common with a physician (Luke). They both lived around the same time period and both went by Lucius. There are too many similarities to ignore.

Luke and Plutarch's works share common techniques and structuring and Plutarch even wrote a book called "Parallel Lives", which is fitting because he was leading a parallel life with Luke it seems.
edit on 7-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


From what I've found so far Lucius seemed to be a very common name for the period.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Probably, but Luke is still short form for Lucius, and Plutarch's Roman name was Lucius. They have a lot more in common than just a name. Did you visit that link I posted earlier? LOTS of similarities between the two.

The part of Acts where Paul escapes prison via an earthquake mirrors the story of Dionysus escaping prison via an earthquake in "The Bacchae", whose author just so happened to be Plutarch's favorite writer. Other similarities are located in Plutarch's Parable.
edit on 7-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


There's likewise a ton of similarities between Lincoln and JFK.

Take a peek at this if you would like to, it's not that long of a read, and it does a good job explaining why historians and the early Christians had little argument that Luke was writing a historical narrative.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Those letters appeared in human history after both Thomas and Mary were dead.

And so did the "Gospels" appear in human history after Jesus was dead!


How is that apples to apples? None of the gospels claim to be written by Jesus. Thomas and Mary claim to be written by Thomas and Mary.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You mean that famous list of similarities? Half of those similarities aren't even true and were made up the last I heard.

The difference between JFK/Lincoln and Luke/Plutarch is that Lincoln lived nearly 200 years before JFK and their is no denying they were different people. Plutarch lived around the same time as Luke, had an identical writing style, and even used all the same characters as Luke in his works.

There are so many parallels between Plutarch and Luke's works/lives that them NOT being the same person is highly unlikely. The fact that they share SO MANY similarities and the fact that Plutarch wrote a book called "Parallel Lives" shoukd be proof enough for anyone. They were the same person.
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Scholars, secular and Christian don't agree with that theory. Neither do historians, but then again historians don't deal in conjecture.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


How is that apples to apples? None of the gospels claim to be written by Jesus. Thomas and Mary claim to be written by Thomas and Mary.

Oh, so, actually signed monographs are hoaxes, but anonymously-written stories that borrowed from each other and do not agree, and were later "assigned" to M, M, L, and J are not?

btw, I just looked up a simple Google search for Luke and Plutarch, as 3NL suggested, there are TONS of scholars and historians who DO INDEED believe they were the same person.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


When I did a google search I saw a conspiracy article, some random guy's blog, and an Atheist forum. The two men have similarities, but that's the extent of it. Plutarch lived from 45 - 120 AD. Paul and Peter were both martyred around 52-54 AD in Rome.

That would mean that if this were true Plutarch would have been a 6-8 year old physician. Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. I mean, maybe he was an ancient Doogie Howser M.D., but the likelihood teeters on the fence between absurd and intellectually dishonest.

edit on 8-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
And this just struck me, Paul met Luke on his second missionary journey, which was 49 AD. Plutarch would have had to learn medicine, and Greek prose as an infant and toddler.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


All it says is "we", and only for a short time in one chapter of the book! The rest is written in third person perspective. You should really check out that link I posted, it explains all of that. That one instance where Luke wrote "we" instead of "they" matches up almost perfectly with an instance in "The Odyssey" by Homer, a work of fiction.


MacDonald's comparison of the Odyssey, 10-12, and Acts, 20:7-12, is most intriguing:

1. Odyssey 10-12: Odysseus and crew leave Troy and sail back to Achaea.

Acts 20:7-12: Paul and crew stop at Troy, having left Achaea to sail back to Jerusalem.

2. Odyssey 10-12: First person plural (most of book 10).

Acts 20:7-12: First person plural (20:1-8). (Gott note: these were switches from third person to first person.)

3. Odyssey 10-12: After a sojourn, a meal (10.466-77).

Acts: 20:7-12: After a sojourn, a meal (20:6,7,11).

4. Odyssey 10-12: Circe's 'dark halls' (10.479.)

Acts: 20:7-12: There were plenty of lamps in the upper room (20:8).

5. Odyssey 10-12: 'sweet sleep (glukon upnon, 10.548).

Acts 20:7-12: 'deep sleep' (upno bathei, 20:9).

6. Odyssey 10-12: Switch to third person (10.552).

Acts 20:7-12: Switch to third person (20:9).

7. Odyssey 10-12: There was one, Elpenor, the youngest of all lying on the roof (10.552).

Acts 20:7-12: A certain young man named Eutychus was seated at a window (20:9).

8. Odyssey 10-12: Elpenor fell from a roof (10.559-11.64).

Acts 20:7-12: Eutychus fell from the third story (20:9).

9. Odyssey 10-12: Elpenor's soul (psuche) goes to Hades (10.560-11.65).

Acts 20:7-12: Eutychus's soul (psuche) stays in him (20:10).

10. Odyssey 10-12: Delay in burying Elpenor until dawn of the next day (12.1-15).

Acts 20:7-12: Delay in raising Eutychus until dawn officials the next day (20:11).

11. Odyssey 10-12: Associates fetch the body 12.10).

Acts 20:7-12: Associates revive the body (20:12).

"The parallels between these stories are more lexical, more detailed, and more sequential than the rewritings of the Elpenor story by Plato, Plutarch, Virgil, and Apuleius discussed earlier.


The part of the story where Eutychus was raised from the dead took place in Troas, a.k.a. Troy, a huge part of "The Odyssey".

And other similarities with Plutarch's "Romulus" and Jesus' death in Luke.


Additional correlation can be found in Romulus by Plutarch, when he describes what occurred at Romulus' death: " . . . strange and unaccountable disorders and alterations took place in the air; the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night, and that, too, no quiet, peaceable night, but with terrible thunderings, and boisterous winds from all quarters; during which the common people dispersed and fled, but the senators kept close together. The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to honor and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god. The multitude, hearing this, went away believing and rejoicing in hopes of good things from him; but there were some, who, canvassing the matter in a hostile temper, accused and aspersed the patricians, as men that persuaded the people to believe ridiculous tales, when they themselves were the murderers of the king."

Luke 23:44-48: "It came now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun's light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.' Having said this, he breathed his last. When the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, 'Certainly this man was innocent.' And when all the crowds who had gathered there for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they returned home, beating their breasts."


Source

The same goes for Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris", the parallels are WAY too many to keep ignoring.
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The bible wasn't put together in a day, it was formed over a period of 200 or 300 years. If you think someone could masquerade as Mary Magdalene or whoever, what makes you think Acts couldn't have been written after the fact? Scholars agree that Acts was finished anywhere between 60 and 150 AD, Plutarch would have been 15 at the earliest, the EARLIEST. That leaves the possibility of Plutarch being the author wide open.

For someone who traveled with Paul so much, Luke is strangely omitted from Acts, except for that ONE instance and that instance lines up with a fiction book.

They both lived and died in the same place, both traveled to the same places, both had the same name, and both used identical writing styles. You can continue to ignore it if you want.

Luke's life parallels that of Plutarch almost perfectly. Plutarch wrote a book called "Parallel Lives", his version of Romulus' death mirrors that of Jesus, elements of "Isis and Osiris" match with what Luke wrote as well. Those aren't just coincidences in my opinion.
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Do you know the purpose Luke and Acts were complied? It was to present to the Roman Emperor for Paul's appeal. That's why Luke interviewed all the eye-witnesses. Under Roman law that had to precede Paul to Rome before his appeal. So, no, those two volumes were written prior to 54 AD.

And the Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years, by 40 authors, most of whom never met the others. The NT epistles were written by 95 AD with 3 John and Revelation being the last two.

edit on 8-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Plutarch would have been 4 years old when Paul began his second missionary journey.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join