Religion can make you a better person?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Historians disagree. When was Acts written?

From that Google search, nothing comes up before 60 AD. Where did you get your number from?

If the book of Acts was required for Paul's trial, then why is his trial in Acts? Did Luke somehow travel into the future to give exact accounts of what would happen during his trial? There are 28 chapters in Acts, the trials begin in chapter 22. Where did the last 6 chapters come from if it was completed before his trial?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


And Luke is never mentioned by name in Acts, not once! The only thing that qualifies as him being mentioned is when he says "we" in Acts 20. He switches back to "they" and "them" after a few verses. Have you been reading my posts or are you just ignoring them? The ONLY evidence that Luke met Paul was in a tiny section of a huge book. That tiny section lines up with a story told in "The Odyssey" about Elpenor.

From the same link:

Homer's Odysseus speaks:

'There was one, Elpenor, the youngest of all, not over valiant in war nor sound of understanding, who had laid him down apart from his comrades in the sacred house of Circe, seeking the cool air, for he was heavy with wine. He heard the noise and the bustle of his comrades as they moved about, and suddenly sprang up, and forgot to go to the long ladder that he might come down again, but fell headlong from the roof, and his neck was broken away from the spine, and his spirit went down to the house of Hades. (Odyssey 10.552-60).'"

Note the similarities apparent in Luke's story about Eutychus:

Acts 20:8-12 : "There were many lamps in the room upstairs where we were meeting. A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, began to sink off into a deep sleep while Paul talked still longer. Overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground three floors below and was picked up dead. But Paul went down, and bending over him took him in his arms, and said, 'Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.' Then Paul went upstairs, and after he had broken bread and eaten, he continued to converse with them until dawn; then he left. Meanwhile they had taken the boy away alive and were not a little comforted."

Why would Luke draw so many parallels between this instance and "The Odyssey"? They are glaring similarities, maybe Plutarch was hinting at something here?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Re-read what I said. I didn't say it was required for Paul's trial, I said it was the Roman protocol for his APPEAL TO the Emperor. Which states just as much in chapter 28 of Acts.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The bible wasn't put together in a day, it was formed over a period of 200 or 300 years.

Actually, if you include the OT, it was thousands of years in the making, and still hasn't stopped "evolving." Frankly, I doubt it ever will, and that's why I push for a new, universal version that eliminates "stories" that are taken literally all too often and used to browbeat others.

Like many, many works of literature, it includes some places that were/are real - but also some that were not. Likewise, the miracle stories and the originals like Abe and Moe have been legendized just like Achilles, Arthur, William Wallace, etc.

Those who claim "this version" or "that version" whether it's Jefferson's, or JWs, or KJV, or RCC, or any of the modern translations - is "the right one" are wearing blinders, stubbornly so!, and in my opinion missing out on a LOT of rich and thought-provoking material.

"Scripture alone" is not a valid platform for a thinking person and seeker. Much too controversial and a subject of never-ending study, division, debate, argument, and questions with no answers. One must be aware of the threads of continuity that work through ALL of the major and extinct faiths in order to come to a grounded, broad-based understanding.

If a person does so, and finds that commonality in all of them.....the "details" don't matter so much. It's a mystery, and always will be until more "primary sources" are discovered. Meanwhile, religion can be used equally as a destructive or a positive force. Depends on the handler.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Paul mentions Luke by name in three epistles, along with The beloved physician". Acts is the second volume to Luke which he does name himself as Luke. The book names, as well as chapter and verse designations were created much later to identify specific books, chapters and verses.

reply to post by wildtimes


I should have said the NT not the bible, my bad.

When I think bible, I think Jesus and associate "bible" with the NT for some reason. I don't really read the OT too much so that may be why.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

The bible wasn't put together in a day, it was formed over a period of 200 or 300 years.

Actually, if you include the OT, it was thousands of years in the making, and still hasn't stop "evolving."

Those who claim "this version" or "that version" whether it's Jefferson's, or JWs, or KJV, or RCC, or any of the modern translations - is "the right one" are wearing blinders.

Correct, but it is prudent to assert that a certain manuscript is the correct one based on an overwhelming majority of documents that agree completely with each other. That MSS would be the TR., or also called the Received Text/Majority Text.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by wildtimes

 

I should have said the NT not the bible, my bad.

When I think bible, I think Jesus and associate "bible" with the NT for some reason. I don't really read the OT too much so that may be why.

Well, the NT was written in one lifetime. John wrote Revelation and 3 John in 95 AD. The other authors had been martyred by that point in time, he survived them all.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

documents that agree completely with each other

....and the the four Gospels DO NOT. Just because a text is "received" doesn't make it "true." It makes it popular.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


But historians agree that it was finished no earlier than 60 AD, and that's being generous. How could Acts have been part of the trial when it wasn't completed until at least 60 AD?

Where did you get 54 AD from? I'm genuinely curious.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

documents that agree completely with each other

....and the the four Gospels DO NOT. Just because a text is "received" doesn't make it "true." It makes it popular.

That's not at all what I meant. I meant gospel of John from Antioch agrees with gospel of John from Jerusalem for example. The vast number of MSS that are in agreement are called the TR manuscript.

And btw, minor variations within the Gospel accounts are proof of accuracy and truth. Had they agreed perfectly that would be strong evidence for collusion. Any attorney worth a grain of salt would object for collusion if all the witnesses stories matched perfectly in detail.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Luke and Matthew's genealogies of Jesus don't even agree! How can you say they all agree when they clearly don't in some cases?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

But historians agree that it was finished no earlier than 60 AD, and that's being generous. How could Acts have been part of the trial when it wasn't completed until at least 60 AD?

Where did you get 54 AD from? I'm genuinely curious.

No they don't agree, you mean historians who agree agree. The dates for Paul's execution exclude that date, which was 52-54 AD. I'm an Occam's razor type. Paul was put to death by Nero.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Luke and Matthew's genealogies of Jesus don't even agree! How can you say they all agree when they clearly don't in some cases?

Well no kidding. One traces His genealogy through Joseph to show His legal right and one traces through Mary to show His birthright. Luke was addressed to a Gentile audience who wouldn't care about Jewish birthrights. Matthew was addressed to the Jews. That's why Hebrew terms and customs are explained in Luke but not in Matthew.

And re-read what I said, I never once said the gospels agree. I said the majority of manuscripts agree. A manuscript is a complete work of the books of the Bible.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Any attorney worth a grain of salt would object for collusion if all the witnesses stories matched perfectly in detail.

NuT! Most of them were NOT WITNESSES! Even Paul was not! There is SO MUCH debate about who wrote what, when, and where they got their "versions" -- yet you keep insisting they were eye-witnesses. THEY WERE NOT eye-witnesses. And as long as you continue to hammer on that, we will disagree.

Those writings - whoever it was who wrote them, alone or in collaboration - were repeating hearsay. They are hearsay and personal deductions. The "received dates" are all messed up, even Jesus was not born in Year Zero.
And he did not get stabbed through the heart, either! Gha.

reply to post by wildtimes


John, Peter, James, Jude, Matthew were eye-witnesses. Luke in the first chapter said his works were from interviewing eye-witnesses. And as mentioned before, Paul was a disciple of Gameliel who was president of the Sanhedrin. So it's safe to assume Gameliel was present for the trial and execution of Jesus. Besides that, Paul didn't record an account of the gospel.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


In that case, point me toward a scholar/historian that agrees it was completed before 60 AD. I'll be waiting. Also, Paul didn't die until around 67 AD. Where are you getting your dates from?

The Roman version of the Greek god Dionysus was named Bacchus. Bacchus was the youngest god in the pantheon and the only one to have a mortal mother. He was also considered a "dying god" which means he died only to resurrect. Dionysus (Bacchus) was the Greek god of wine and theatre. He was also known to cause earthquakes.

Jesus was a man with a mortal mother and god as his father, he died and resurrected. Jesus made wine from water, just as Dionysus was the god of wine. When Jesus dies, Luke mentions an earthquake taking place.

Leonardo da Vinci painted a picture of John the Baptist which was later painted over with the attributes of Bacchus and was renamed "Bacchus". Luke was the only gospel writer to write about John's birth. Luke and Plutarch had a lot of similarities, one of Plutarch's favorite writers/authors was Euripides who wrote "The Bacchae" which was a story about Dionysus (Bacchus).

The dots are there to be connected, you just have to be open to the possibilities, something you don't seem to be.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What about the Nag Hammadi library? They don't agree with canon, but I guess since they weren't included in the bible they don't count, right?

For someone who claims to hate religion, you sure do hold on to its doctrine pretty firmly.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Any good introductory text will tell you that not only were the gospels not written by eyewitnesses, but they contain much that is fiction, and separating the cream from the dross is a difficult and demanding task.

A good place to start is with Udo Schnelle’s The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Schelle, a conservative Christian and scholar of the first rank, notes that none of the Gospel writers could have been followers of Jesus (see his discussion of the authorship of the Gospel writers in each of the chapters on the particularly texts).

Bart Ehrman sums the situation up in his widely-used intro work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings: “…They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.”

Luke himself clearly states that he was no follower of Jesus. Nor could Matthew have been a follower of Jesus, for he depends almost entirely on Mark for the skeleton of his story. And Mark could not have been a follower of Jesus because the narrative portions of his story are made up almost entirely out of the Old Testament, while the sayings appear to be common to the Hellenistic milieu.

Were the Gospels Eyewitness accounts of the Life of Jesus?

So there.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Greek mythology had gods who died and rose again with the SEASONS every year. No mythology has a death and resurrection to life.

And the book of Acts makes no mention of Paul's death, wouldn't the author consider that key information to the books central character for the last half of the book?