FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-16-2001, 06:13 PM   #1
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post Body of St. Luke

Scientists think body might be St. Luke

This article might be of interest to the readers of this forum, as it relates the use of science to aid history.

It is also of interest to compare the title and the first paragraph:

Quote:
A new DNA analysis gives tentative support to the belief that the remains in an ancient lead coffin are those of St. Luke, traditionally considered the author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
wiht the actual conclusion, which is that the body cannot be ruled out to be the body of St Luke or some other resident of "Antioch, on the eastern Mediterranean, where Luke is said to have been born. . . who died between 72 A.D. and 416 A.D." (Wow, that really narrows it down.)
Toto is offline  
Old 10-16-2001, 09:41 PM   #2
Bill
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Gatorville, Florida
Posts: 4,334
Exclamation

Another interesting paragraph is this one:
Quote:
The Evangelist, according to ancient sources, was a physician who was born in Antioch and died at 84 in about 150 A.D. in the Greek city of Thebes.
This means that "Luke" was alleged to have been born in about 66 CE, and thus could not have been an actual companion of St. Paul, unless Paul lived to at least 80 CE himself (when "Luke" would have been about 14). Anyway, I see this as a virtual admission that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts date from after 80 CE.

== Bill
Bill is offline  
Old 10-17-2001, 01:16 AM   #3
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill:
Anyway, I see this as a virtual admission that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts date from after 80 CE.
Bill, that 150AD date is worthless as you well know. It certainly doesn't overturn the clear statements in Acts that the writer travelled with Paul. If you can pick on unsubstantiated early church traditions that reinforce your prejudices, can I to?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 10-17-2001, 07:00 AM   #4
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Of course. The writer said he traveled with Paul, so it must be true.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 10-17-2001, 07:02 AM   #5
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Originally posted by Toto:
wiht the actual conclusion, which is that the body cannot be ruled out to be the body of St Luke or some other resident of "Antioch, on the eastern Mediterranean, where Luke is said to have been born. . . who died between 72 A.D. and 416 A.D." (Wow, that really narrows it down.)

ROTFLMAO. Do we have a DNA sample from Saint Luke to compare it with?

What if Luke was a woman.....

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:49 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.