It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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.
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)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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?
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.
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.