Religion can make you a better person?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Why do you have such a difficult time reading what I type? That generally means a person is scanning for anything to criticize and not reading slowly for accuracy.

Where did I ever say "PETER" was present?




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What makes you think Paul was at the crucifixion? If it's safe to assume that Paul was at the crucifixion without any evidence then it's safe to assume Luke was Plutarch. The evidence for Luke being Plutarch is much weightier than Paul being at the crucifixion.

There is evidence that suggests the two were the same person, there is no evidence that suggests Paul was at the crucifixion, so why throw out the evidence and keep the non-evidence?
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Look, if you want to continue to dialogue with me you need to read what I type. It's quite frustrating to say things over and over and over again. It's a waste of time. This will make the fourth time I've said this in just this very thread.

Paul was a disciple of Gameliel, who was president of the Sanhedrin, where Christ was initially tried. Gameliel would have been present. Likewise Gameliel would have been present to testify to Pilate. As one of Gameliel's disciples Paul would have been present at both.

First century Rabbis had select few disciples who followed them everywhere. They ate when they ate, slept when they slept, they literally lives their lives alongside their Rabbi. The caveat of Jewish tradition is historical fact of that period of time.
edit on 8-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
You said that Paul was at the crucifixion, I'm saying that the only way he was at the crucifixion was if he was Peter in my opinion. Did YOU read MY post because I read yours.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Controversy sells books dear.

So do history and new research, "dear". Try reading some of those. One needs to keep up with new developments in a field to be considered knowledgeable about it; licensed and tenured professionals and professors are obliged to continue their educations, else lose their license or postion.
A textual expert is not an archaeologist or sociologist or anthropologist, and besides, there's always someone who will come along and "top" the "previous top."

Why are you so stubborn? What about "apologetics" made you shut down your search?

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


With all due respect, I've taken my search to the next level above skeptics. I've heard their objections and theories and searched out the rebuttals by conservative experts and theologians. Most of what I've ever seen from skeptics is they stop their search after what the detractors say and never search out the rebuttals.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You said that Paul was at the crucifixion, I'm saying that the only way he was at the crucifixion was if he was Peter in my opinion. Did YOU read MY post because I read yours.


Paul wasn't Peter. Read Acts 15. And I said based on the fact that Paul was a disciple of Gameliel, president of the Sanhedrin, it was safe to assume Paul was present at both the initial trial at the Sanhedrin and the crucifixion where the verdict of the Sanhedrin would have been given to Pilate.

So, no I didn't state it was a matter of fact Paul was there, but a very safe conjecture based on his relationship to Gameliel and the historical/cultural aspect of the relationship between rabbi and their disciples. With that said, the claim that someone never met someone in the same time and village is impossible to prove as it's impossible to prove a negative.

That's logic 101, no one can prove a negative position without absolute knowledge.
edit on 8-2-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Plutarch was a master of taking people and turning them into others. Read "Parallel Lives" to get a good barometer on his skill in that field.

I don't think you're reading my posts because you're only replying to the shortest ones. You're disagreeing just to disagree it seems. Paul could just as easily be Peter as Luke could be Plutarch. Why did Peter all but disappear when Acts starts? He's mentioned a few times but only a few, the rest is Paul.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


In that case, it's safe to assume that Luke was Plutarch don't you think? If you accept something just because you want to without evidence, then why can't you accept something that DOES have evidence to back it up? Because you don't want to?

Paul even stated that he was the son of a Pharisee, Gameliel was a Pharisee.

Oh, and Paul "maybe" seeing Jesus at the trial does not equal Paul knowing him. Also, Gameliel had a son named Simeon, sounds a lot like Simon (Peter) doesn't it?
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


In that case, it's safe to assume that Luke was Plutarch don't you think?


CERTAINLY NOT, haha! Considering Plutarch was 4 years old at the time of Paul's second missionary journey. (49 AD)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Plutarch was a master of taking people and turning them into others. Read "Parallel Lives" to get a good barometer on his skill in that field.

I don't think you're reading my posts because you're only replying to the shortest ones. You're disagreeing just to disagree it seems. Paul could just as easily be Peter as Luke could be Plutarch. Why did Peter all but disappear when Acts starts? He's mentioned a few times but only a few, the rest is Paul.



Because Paul was appealing his conviction to the Emperor, not Peter. (Acts 28)

And I use a cell phone for internet use, that makes it really difficult to get too crazy with replies.

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



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So what's with all the similarities? Are you just going to ignore them?

There's no way there were two people with the same name, birth place, writing styles, interests, etc. who were separate people.

They even lived around the same time and even referenced and mirrored each others works! It's almost as if you immediately forget anything that opposes your views. I've already listed the NUMEROUS similarities between the two. Why are you ignoring them?

Plutarch's work "Parallel Lives" even points directly to the possibility of them being the same person. The similarities in Plutarch's "Romulus" with the death of Jesus are even there!
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 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So what's with all the similarities? Are you just going to ignore them?

There's no way there were two people with the same name, birth place, writing styles, interests, etc. that lived around the same time and even referenced and mirrored each others works, are not the same person. It's almost as if you immediately forget anything that opposes your views. I've already listed the NUMEROUS similarities between the two. Why are you ignoring them?
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


You're ignoring the glaring fact that excludes them being the same, Plutarch's birth in 45 AD.

Luke was a traveling companion of Paul during his second and third missionary journeys. Luke was rdferred to in three of Paul's epistles as the beloved physician.

Plutarch was a toddler at that period of time, neither could he have been a traveling companion or a physician. Paul was martyred in 52-54 AD. Plutarch was born in 45 AD and died in 120 AD.

Sure there are similarities, but the dates preclude Plutarch from being Luke. Unless like I mentioned earlier that Plutarch learned medicine and Greek prose as an infant.

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



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Paul wasn't "martyred" until 67, I don't know where you're getting your dates from, seriously. That would mean Plutarch was 22 when he died. You continue to dismiss the glaring similarities and the references to each others works. Could you please explain those away?

What are the chances of two people having identical credentials not being the same person? Not very high I wouldn't think. The fact that they mirror each others techniques only puts the icing on the cake.

What are the chances of the bible NOT being messed with? Absolutely ZERO. We can't get the truth out of the leaders today, do you seriously think it would have been any different 2,000 years ago from people known for force-converting others to their side?

It wouldn't be that hard for them to insert a name into the text. I could easily change every instance of Jesus being mentioned in the bible if I wanted, all it would take is time and patience. Why would it be any different for the people who had the money to pay others to do it for them in those times?

Also, Luke's birthday isn't known. Coincidence?
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


It appears it was 62 perhaps I was mistaking Peter's for Paul's. It's been a few years since my NT survey courses. Even so, Paul's second missionary journey was 49 through 52 AD. In which Plutarch would have been a 4 year old toddler. Luke accompanied Paul on that second journey, and again on his third. John Mark and Barnabas travelled with Paul on the first. And the disagreement over John Mark led to Paul and Barnabas parting ways before the second journey.

Let's be ultra liberal with the date of Paul's martyrdom and put it at the end of Nero's reign, 68 AD. That doean't affect the date of Paul's 2nd missionary journey from 49 through 52 AD, at which time Plutarch would have been 4 years old.


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



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


And the bible WAS seriously messed with! The Alexandrian codecies have several passages expurgated completely from the text.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The only evidence that Luke traveled with Paul is when Luke switches from third person to first person, and that's only for a tiny fraction of Paul's second mission. That switch from third to first and back to third mirrors that of "The Odyssey", where the switch from third to first revolves around the story of Elpenor, which mirrors the story of Luke's Eutychus.

Luke's story of how Paul went to jail only for an earthquake to release him mirrors the story of Dionysus in jail in "The Bacchae" written by Euripides. Eupirides was one of Plutarch's favorite writers.

As with you, having to repeat myself gets annoying. It's like you forget everything that has been discussed so far, either that or you don't bother to read my posts.
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical

So what makes you think that certain part of the bible wasn't messed with?

The bible was messed with, just not in any way that I suggest, even though the evidence is there for all to see, right? How exactly was it messed with in your opinion?



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

So what makes you think that certain part of the bible wasn't messed with?


I never said that, in fact I said it WAS messed with. The Alexandrian codecies expurgated a great deal of the text.


The bible was messed with, just not in any way that I suggest, even though the evidence is there for all to see, right? How exactly was it messed with in your opinion?


One glaring example is the last 12 verses of Mark. They are missing from the 4th and 5th century Alexandrian MSS yet Irenaeus quotes from them in 180 AD.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Another excerpt:


Acts 20:4-6: "He was accompanied by Sopater of Beroea, the son of Pyrrhus, . . . these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas; but we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we joined them in Troas, where we stayed for seven days."

The early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: They omitted it! And the King James Version did the same. The omission of this one name was crucial to subverting Luke's plan.

Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? This is a most fascinating character, and his importance in solving the riddle becomes evident very quickly:

Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, (319-272 BCE) was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned.

The text from which the following excerpts were taken can be found at www.e-classics.com/pyrrhus.

" . . . Pyrrhus joined up with Demetrius, the husband of his sister . . ."

"Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians. These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers."

"And so without fighting, Pyrrhus became King of Macedonia (286 BC)."

The kings of Epirus were said to have been descended from Pyrrhus (who was also known as Neoptolemus) who was the son of Achilles, the famous Greek warrior of the Trojan War. Pyrrhus and Alexander were said to be worthy descendants of Achilles.

Another tidbit about Pyrrhus is of great importance, and it's probably the reason his name was expunged from early biblical texts: He was one of the soldiers who hid inside the Trojan horse. And that is the best-known legacy from the legend of Troy. It's what everyone thinks of when Troy and the Trojan War are mentioned. The name Pyrrhus was inserted here in Luke's gospel in the same sentence as Troas to direct the reader to the legend of the Trojan Horse.


Source

Plutarch wrote a book called "Pyrrhus: The Fool of Hope", yet another connection between Plutarch and Luke.

Don't forget to notice either, "The Fool of Hope" was written around the same time as Luke's gospel, so the two being one has even MORE weight behind it.

Also notice how Pyrrhus sent agents of his to masquerade as Macedonians. The chapter in which a man named Pyrrhus is mentioned in Acts is called "Through Macedonia and Greece". That's a pretty huge coincidence in my opinion.
edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The only evidence that Luke traveled with Paul is when Luke switches from third person to first person, and that's only for a tiny fraction of Paul's second mission.



That's isn't true. Paul mentioned Luke in three different epistles as his beloved physician.



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


So what makes you think that part of the bible (Acts) wasn't messed with? You misunderstood my question.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join