Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 05-06-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Does Occam's Razor tell us what Luke meant?

This is just silly.

In other words, No.

rhutchin · 05-06-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One does not have to presuppose inerrancy in this case.

But you presuppose inerrancy in many other cases, an example being your absurd claim that a global flood occured. No rational person would believe that a global flood occured. How many false claims should it take to discredit a religious book?

I think the only place you really need to presuppose inerrancy is for the laws. The laws define sin and cannot be tested through scientific, empirical tests so we have to take them as inerrant.

Amaleq13 · 05-06-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, who can we ask, since no one today really knows the mind of Luke or the early Christians and how they might have understood the term.

The meaning of the term is clear from the context of the surrounding story. There is no true confusion about the meaning. The only reason you want a different meaning is because of the conflict with your beliefs the plain meaning creates. You must pretend there is confusion so that you can justify a new meaning.

rhutchin · 05-07-2009, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, who can we ask, since no one today really knows the mind of Luke or the early Christians and how they might have understood the term.

The meaning of the term is clear from the context of the surrounding story. There is no true confusion about the meaning. The only reason you want a different meaning is because of the conflict with your beliefs the plain meaning creates. You must pretend there is confusion so that you can justify a new meaning.

Not necessarily. The early Christians had come under the influence of Christ whom they recognized as God. At the least, the term, "law of the Lord," would be that law given to Moses as explained by Christ (e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount). As Christ said, "You have heard...but I tell you," so the early Christian when confronted with someone who appealed to the Law of the Lord given to Moses, would have countered with that received by them from Christ. The Jew would have understood the Law of the Lord to be that written in the Torah and the early Christian would have understood it to be that taught to them by Christ. Thus, the argument between them would have been, "Moses wrote X," and "But Christ said Y." The early Christian would have understood that the Jew would view the law of the Lord only as that written by Moses in the Torah but the full Law of the Lord would be that given by God through Christ and any other means as through a dream to Joseph. If Christ spoke to them and commanded them to do X, then that became the Law of the Lord to them. If God spoke to Joseph or to Paul, then that became the Law of the Lord to Joseph or to Paul. The Jew would see the law of the Lord narrowly as just that given to Moses. The Christian (then as well as today) sees the Law of the Lord as that instruction of God given through Moses, through Christ, through Paul, or through any other means God might use to convey His law.

Kasper · 05-07-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

This is just silly.

In other words, No.

This is even more silly

show_no_mercy · 05-07-2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Why are you assuming it's part of Peter's sermon?

Luke is letting the reader know why Peter is making this speech so he has that slight digression explaining it. Why would Peter say "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this"?

I agree that Peter may not not have said, "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this." He could have said it as he was talking to close friends and the extra detail would have enforced the point he was making about Judas. However, v19 could be a digression by Luke to tell the reader that the things which Peter said were known to many people.

The real issue here is whether v18 was part of Peter's sermon or part of Luke's digression. I go with it being part of Peter's sermon. It fits within the flow of v17 and v20. It emphasizes why Peter then tells the people that Scripture foretold that his "habitation would be desolate" [KJV].

How do you conclude that anything other than v19 is to be read as a digression by Luke?

The issue here is that Luke doesn't know of Matthew's gospel. Even if I grant you that only 1:19 is a digression by Luke, it still means that Luke is unaware of Matthew's gospel. Matthew's gospel has Judas returning the money he received for his betrayal. If Luke is saying "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this" (Peter's story) then he would have added an extra digression explaining why this story is different from Matthew's account - e.g. "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this except for the gospel writer Matthew who says that Judas actually kept his money and bought a field".

If he didn't know about Matthew's account, then these contradictory explanations for Judas' use of the blood money and contradictory explanations of Judas' death make sense.

Amaleq13 · 05-07-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You must pretend there is confusion so that you can justify a new meaning.

Not necessarily.

No, not "necessarily" but it does seem to be true of your argument nonetheless. You have no other apparent reason to question the plain meaning of the phrase and no examples to support your efforts.

Quote:

The early Christians had come under the influence of Christ whom they recognized as God.

This anachronistic attribution of later Christian beliefs wouldn't help you even if it were true since Christ is just a child in the story.

Straining for an even more convoluted, but just as speculative, "coulda-been" story doesn't actually lend your argument support.

This only works on folks who already believe the same things you do.

Quote:

As Christ said, "You have heard...but I tell you,"...

But this discussion isn't about an alternate interpretation of the Lord's law but what is meant by the Lord's law. Even here it would still be a reference to the same body of laws but with a contrast of interpretations. You aren't helping your case with this at all. :huh:

Quote:

The Jew would have understood the Law of the Lord to be that written in the Torah and the early Christian would have understood it to be that taught to them by Christ.

Your own example fails to support this nonsense! The story clearly refers to Jewish traditions found in the Law relating to the birth of a son and Christ later offering an alternate interpretation of those same laws does not change the fact that both Christians and Jews understood that the phrase referred to the Law from Moses.

Quote:

If Christ spoke to them and commanded them to do X, then that became the Law of the Lord to them.

That is your unsupported assumption. Repeating it in a more convoluted argument does not create support for it.

In the context of the surrounding story, the meaning of the phrase is a clear reference to the same body of ancient laws and there does not appear to be any support for the notion that the same phrase was ever used by anyone to refer to later commands given by either God or Christ.

Net2004 · 05-07-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

"First, the language of Luke 2:41 certainly indicates that Mary and Joseph went to JerusalemEVERY YEAR because the Greek has KAT' ETOS, which means annually or every year. This is a well-attested expression, on which you can see other examples in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon (1957 edition), p. 317. Luke 2:41 indicates that they made this annual trip from the birth onward, and so that would have included the entire reign of Archelaus. "

In context, Luke says, "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." They would have done this while living in Bethlehem or Nazareth. If this practice held even with the trip to Egypt, it suggests (because that explicit information is not provided) that the time spent in Egypt was short, and at least less than one year. Or, maybe they were to Jerusalem from Egypt and returned to Egypt afterwards. Nothing is really precluded from happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

luke had no problem in telling his readers about how much time had passed :

After some days Paul said to Barnabas...
"And after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived.
"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was
sent from God to a city in Galilee"
"And when eight days were
fulfilled for circumcising, him, his name was called Jesus
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign
of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea...
And it came to pass about
eight days after these sayings, that he [Jesus] took with him...

why luke did not tell his readers that after a few years, jesus's parents went to jerusalem every year?

Good point. Luke is careful to give the reader specific time information as you note. In the contested language, Luke does not do so suggesting that he allows for something else to be happening or timing is not really relevant. Nonetheless, Luke says that, in all that was happening, Joseph and Mary still went to Jerusalem for Passover every year.

i don't understand your reply.according to you was the child brought to jerusalem from birth onwards "every year"?

19 And Herod having died, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream doth appear to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, `Having risen, take the child and his mother, and be going to the land of Israel, for they have died -- those seeking the life of the child.' 21 And he, having risen, took the child and his mother, and came to the land of Israel, 22 and having heard that Archelaus doth reign over Judea instead of Herod his father, he was afraid to go thither, and having been divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the parts of Galilee, 23 and coming, he dwelt in a city named Nazareth...

Doug Shaver · 05-07-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You see no reason to assume that because you don't presuppose the gospels to be inerrant. If you presuppose inerrancy, then you must assume anything it takes to make the discrepancies go away. After all, if they are inerrant, then there cannot be any discrepancies. QED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

One does not have to presuppose inerrancy in this case. In essence, we have two historical accounts, each of which gives us different information about those events surrounding the birth of Christ.

Those two accounts look inconsistent prima facie. The only people who think they don't look inconsistent are inerrantists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Unless we have reason to conclude that one account is erroneous, we should conclude that they complement each other.

Apparent inconsistency is sufficient reason to infer that at least one is erroneous, unless we have reason to rule out the possibility of error. Speculation about the writers' possible mindsets do not amount proof against the possibility of error.

Doug Shaver · 05-07-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Jews were notorious for misunderstanding the Scriptures

That's what Christians have been saying for 2,000 years. It's their word against the Jews' word.

According to Muslims, Jesus' own disciples misunderstood him. Do you think I take their word for that?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.