Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-15-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In The Life of Josephus, written in the 1st century, the word "physician" implies "medical doctor".

OK. I'm still not clear what that, in and of itself, lets us infer about Luke's age, but since it's not an issue central to the discussion, there's no need to go into a digression on it. Stipulated: If the author of GLuke had travelled with Paul, then he was probably old when GLuke was written.

regards,

NinJay

It may have taken a person over 10 years of studies to become a physician. Galen, a Greek physician of the 2nd century, at around 20 years of age, spent about 12 years studying to become a physician.

This information may be an indication that physicians were generally around 30 years of age after completion of training and studies, if they started at about 20 years old.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

-Jay- · 11-15-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

OK. I'm still not clear what that, in and of itself, lets us infer about Luke's age, but since it's not an issue central to the discussion, there's no need to go into a digression on it. Stipulated: If the author of GLuke had travelled with Paul, then he was probably old when GLuke was written.

regards,

NinJay

It may have taken a person over 10 years of studies to become a physician. Galen, a Greek physician of the 2nd century, at around 20 years of age, spent about 12 years studying to become a physician.

This information may be an indication that physicians were generally around 30 years of age after completion of training and studies, if they started at about 20 years old.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

Ah. Got it. I'm tracking with you now.

Thanks!

regards,

NinJay

Huon · 11-16-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisengland

Hello
I,m Chris
For while now I,ve been researching amongst other things the evidence for the resurection.
Now it appears that some of it is good, possibly if it were a natural event historians would accept it possibly they wouldn't.

Hi, Chris ! Bristol and Bordeaux are linked together !

If it were a natural (possible) event, historians could accept it.
You have many examples of people who had visions (Lourdes, La Salette, Fatima, Medjugorje, etc…). Everybody can accept a vision as a fact concerning exclusively the persons who had the visions. No possible checking. But historians will immediately add that the organisers of the pilgrimages did not and do not have any vision at all. The believers look for a good pilgrimage with people of the same faith, and perhaps a miracle, the organisers of the pilgrimages think that they are doing a good thing to strengthen their religion. (Same with the pilgrimages to Mecca).

Quote:

Now I think its important to remember that things like an empty tomb can be explained naturally(if there wasn't guards on the tomb which I expect at least some non-Christians scholars have doubts), if you came to a grave and the body was missing you'd assume that someone took it you wouldn't think they'd rose from the dead'what matters is the appeariences afterwards.
One thing thought that seems like very good evidence to me(althought I could be wrong, I,ve thought some things seemed like good evidence before but they wern't) is the fact that Luke had at least met Paul.
Now what I thought was if he'd met Paul and written an account about him' then when he write his Gospel he must have thought that what he was writing agreed with Paul.
I,m not saying that he only write what Paul told him, alot of scholars think he copied Mark and the Q document but I would have thought that if those documents (which may not be based on eye witnesses and so may have some embellishments) said that Jesus appeared in the flesh but Paul who had spoken to James and Peter said that it was like his expearience a flash of light and a voice or something (which may be easier to explain naturally), then he wouldn't have wrote that it was a physical expearience so they must have said it was a physical appearience.
Which would meen that if you don't beleive in the ressurection you have to find a way to explain that.
Hopefully someone can say what they think.

Luke-Acts are dated from the period 80-130 on the site of Peter Kirby :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Of course, this information should be verified, but it is a rather long work. However, it has been written by various scholars that the author of Luke-Acts was acquainted with the works of Josephus, who wrote between 75 and 99.

I do not believe in the resurrection, and :
1 - I have not to justify my non-belief. It is a non-belief.
2 - The resurrection, understood as a "real" resurrection, is a miracle, especially for Christians.

Roger Pearse · 11-16-2007, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

I do not believe in the resurrection, and :
1 - I have not to justify my non-belief. It is a non-belief.

The unfortunate thing is that most atheists then go on to live by all sorts of beliefes copied from their environment, which they are also unwilling to justify or discuss.

In general whether we believe or do not believe in something, surely we should be able to justify this rationally. Too many atheists demand the right to throw stones while keeping their own systems of belief and practise off the table, and this is one of the things which brings atheism into contempt.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr · 11-16-2007, 04:55 AM

Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

The baby John the Baptist leaped for joy when Mary spoke?

Is this eyewitness testimony?

dog-on · 11-16-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, it is claimed that Luke does not know Paul, but it seems that Paul knows Luke, or I should say the author of Acts, since in Galations chapter 1-2, this Paul tries to clarify in more detail some important chronology and sequence of events which was omitted by the author of Acts in chapter 9.

More likely, the author of Acts is "clarifying" Galatians. (Of course, it may also be the case that much of what we have in Gal has been "adjusted" by later hands and Acts simply seals the deal).

Steven Carr · 11-16-2007, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The unfortunate thing is that most atheists then go on to live by all sorts of beliefes copied from their environment, which they are also unwilling to justify or discuss.

In general whether we believe or do not believe in something, surely we should be able to justify this rationally. Too many atheists demand the right to throw stones while keeping their own systems of belief and practise off the table, and this is one of the things which brings atheism into contempt.

The little boy said the Emperor had no clothes, but was totally unable to say where his own cotton clothes came from, and why his mother dressed him in cotton rather than silk.

How contemptible!

Dogfish · 11-16-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

I do not believe in the resurrection, and :
1 - I have not to justify my non-belief. It is a non-belief.

The unfortunate thing is that most atheists then go on to live by all sorts of beliefes copied from their environment, which they are also unwilling to justify or discuss.

In general whether we believe or do not believe in something, surely we should be able to justify this rationally. Too many atheists demand the right to throw stones while keeping their own systems of belief and practise off the table, and this is one of the things which brings atheism into contempt.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

No, if someone believes something, tells everyone that it is true and they are wrong (and damned) for not believing it, work to pass laws based on their beliefs, they should be able to justify this rationally. And pulling out an old book with dubious origins doesn't count. Hell, someone may believe that the bite of a mosquito give wisdom beyond measure that only The Bitten can understand. No problem. But proclaiming his "Mosquito Truth" as self-evident, teaching it so in schools, calling The Unbitten stupid, and passing goofy laws protecting their sacred bugs is the point where justification becomes necessary.

Lógos Sokratikós · 11-16-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisengland

Hello
I,m Chris
For while now I,ve been researching amongst other things the evidence for the resurection.
Now it appears that some of it is good, possibly if it were a natural event historians would accept it possibly they wouldn't.
Now I think its important to remember that things like an empty tomb can be explained naturally(if there wasn't guards on the tomb which I expect at least some non-Christians scholars have doughts), if you came to a grave and the body was missing you'd assume that someone took it you wouldn't think they'd rose from the dead'what matters is the appeariences afterwards.
One thing thought that seems like very good evidence to me(althought I could be wrong, I,ve thought some things seemed like good evidence before but they wern't) is the fact that Luke had at least met Paul.
Now what I thought was if he'd met Paul and written an account about him' then when he write his Gospel he must have thought that what he was writing agreed with Paul.
I,m not saying that he only write what Paul told him, alot of scholars think he copied Mark and the Q document but I would have thought that if those documents (which may not be based on eye witnesses and so may have some embellishments)said that Jesus appeared in the flesh but Paul who had spoken to James and Peter said that it was like his expearience a flash of light and a voice or something(which may be easier to explain naturally), then he wouldn't have wrote that it was a physical expearience so they must have said it was a physical appearience.
Which would meen that if you don't beleive in the ressurection you have to find a way to expalin that.
Hopefully someone can say what they think.

The author identified as Luke purportedly reported eye-witness accounts.

On the one hand:
We don't believe everyone that either says he's an eye-witness or who reports on behalf of those who s/he says is an eye-witness.

On the other:
Just because a person presents him/herself as reporting an eye-witness account or speaking on behalf of one, we don't necessarily have to conclude they're a liar.

Your OP asks questions that are beyond what people can know via empirical research, which is, BTW, the relevant touchstone of reported events. Initially, at least, we must stand agnositc on the subjects reported. And still, one could not blame anyone for not believing "Luke" (or any of the other identified gospel "authors"), since the subjects they write about are both inverisimilar and, taken together, inconsistent.

-Jay- · 11-16-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The unfortunate thing is that most atheists then go on to live by all sorts of beliefes copied from their environment, which they are also unwilling to justify or discuss.

Such as? What precisely do you mean by "beliefs copied from their environment"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

In general whether we believe or do not believe in something, surely we should be able to justify this rationally. Too many atheists demand the right to throw stones while keeping their own systems of belief and practise off the table, and this is one of the things which brings atheism into contempt.

This seems like it's leading to an "atheism is a religion" line of discussion, which is absurd.

regards,

NinJay

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

11-16-2007, 04:55 AM	#45
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Luke 1:44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. The baby John the Baptist leaped for joy when Mary spoke? Is this eyewitness testimony?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.