Patriot7

So your theory is that Luke is lying about his record being told to him by eyewitnesses, because some theorized document called Q exists, but we just haven't found it yet? :huh:

I just don't have that much faith. How DO you DO it?

SkepticBoyLee

Somehow I get the impression that Patriot doesn't believe things in the Koran and Hadiths are histroical like Muhammaed flying up into heaven on a rock at Mecca.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's not English, it's Greek.

Epeideper polloi epecheiresan anataxasthai diegesin peri ton peplerophoremenon en hemin pragmaton kathos paradosan hemin hoi ap archais autoptai kai huperetai genomeno tou logou, edoxen kamoi parekolouthekoti anothen pasin akribos kathexes soi grapsai, kratiste Theophile.

"seeing that many have taken it in hand to assemble an account of those events which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were witnesses and servants of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good that I also, having a thorough understanding of everything from the beginning, should write everything in order for you, most excellent Theophilus."
(Translation mine)

Verse 2 refers back to verse 1. It's the "many others" who Luke is claiming tried to write everything down "just as it was delivered to us" by the original witnesses. Luke is claiming that he has studied these previous accounts and is now ready to write his own.

To simplify Luke is saying:

"Since lots of others have tried to write these things down just as they were given to us by the original witnesses, I decided that it would be good for me to put it ll in order for you, Theophilus, since I have made myself thoroughly familiar with all of it."

Diogenes the Cynic

Luke never said he spoke to witnesses. See above. This is getting tiresome.

Iasion

Greetings,

How bizarre.
Diogenes said nothing like that.
Q is not the issue.

You just don't seem able to grasp simple concepts and understand basic language.

Luke does NOT say what he wrote was "told to him by eye-witnesses".

He says "OTHERS have written accounts based on eye-witnesses"

Then he says "I have researched carefully..."

He does NOT say he spoke to eye-witnesses,
he does NOT say his work is based on eye-witnesses,
he does NOT name any eye-witnesses.

He makes NO direct connection between eye-witnesses and his work - he merely IMPLIES some sort of connection.

Furthermore, we can all see you have refused to actually research this subject at all - you won't read any books, you won't click links to evidence.

Diogenes is correct - the consensus of modern NT scholarship is that NOT ONE SINGLE book of the NT was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

This can be seen by reading any recent reference work - e.g. Brown, or checking Peter Kirby's site.

You refuse to do so, and you repeat your faithful preaching endlessly - do you think anyone is fooled?


Iasion

Patriot7

Awesome. Let's get a consensus opinion of the posters here at iidb and maybe then THAT'LL make it true! :banghead:


For the sake of arguement I will concede that you and DTC are smarter then I. You can stop arguing that point. I'm more concerned with the subject matter then proving or disproving your intellectual prowess.

Paul claims he met Christ. In His resurrection body no less. Paul has authored more books in the NT then anyother author. Now stop the ad hominem attacks and greasy arguing about how much smarter you all are and PROVE THE CLAIM!! If the consensus of modern NT scholaship is behind you on this fact, please provide a reference to said consensus. Otherwise, let it go. It's real simple. Simply repeating that you're right is great for your ego, but a horrible way of defending your worldview.

Diogenes the Cynic

We already have provided references. Most of the textbooks are not exactly linkable online but you can try looking at any number of books by respected scholars like Metzger, Ehrman, Brown, Maier or Crossan, just to name a few examples. You can also try looking at Peter Kirby's site -- something I have a feeling you haven't bothered to do yet. Here it is again. www.earlychristianwritings.com.

Paul's self-proclaimed revelatory experiences of Jesus do not count as eyewitness accounts. Jesus was dead at the time. Paul never met Jesus. You can't seriously expect that many people here are going to accept Paul's visions as actual encounters with Jesus.

None of us have tried to say that we are smarter than you.

Iasion

Greetings,

How bizarre.


Pardon?
That is the exact opposite of what we see you do.

You keep going on and on about "how smart" or not people are here - but you refuse to actually study the SUBJECT.

Then you claim you aren't interested in how smart we are, but only in the subject?

What nonsense.
Your posts show not the SLIGHTEST interest in researching the subject matter - you have been repeatedly provided with links and references in which that you can check the facts.

You refuse to do so.
I don't think I am that smart, and Diogenes explicitly said something similar.

The issue is what the experts in the field say - THEY are the ones who are "smart".

Diogenes and I and others have actually READ these experts and found that the modern consensus of NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE book of the NT was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

5 pages in and you still have not shown any indication you have studied ANYTHING on this subject.



Paul had a vision in his head.
He never met Jesus.


It HAS been "proved" (to a reasonable level of confidence) - any study of modern NT scholars will tell you that.
But you refuse to study the evidence.


Diogenes did - you ignored it.
Here are some references again :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Also:
Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference) (or via: amazon.co.uk)
and:
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Hardcover) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

These are all standard reference works, well regarded in the field.

These works, and many other modern reference books will have the facts - but you have already made it pretty clear you have no intention of reading anything.


So,
you entire argument rests on IGNORING the accepted arguments and evidence found in any reference work, then INSULTING your opponents.

Do you think anyone is fooled by this behaviour?


Iasion

Amaleq13

Wrong. When a reporter tells a story based on eyewitness accounts, the story, itself, is not an eyewitness account. Any portions where the reporter directly quotes an eyewitness could be called an "eyewitness account" but there is nothing even remotely resembling that in the Gospel attributed to Luke.

Patriot7

What do you mean by that? What are you talking about - "fooling people"? Are you referring to making claims and then retreating to a position of "go read a book". Who are you trying to fool? Please don't pretend that your whole last post is not a critique of me and my aggresive approach.

How bizarre.

You made one claim in reference to the subject matter....

Now if I was a betting man, I'd put money on the fact that we'll get to page 24 before you actually provide an argument referenced to a "consensus of mainstream, biblical scholars" to buttress that theory.