Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-14-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...
I think it is important that the Synoptics were not only similar in content but also similar in style. Whatever genre they fall into, it's reasonable to think that Matthew, Mark and Luke fall into the same genre.

But you can't conclude anything from genre, especially since the genre is sui generis.

Quote:

...
So aLuke claims to be writing history. Thus the options are:

"Fraud": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He was trying to make people think he was writing history.
"Fiction": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He wasn't trying to make people think he was writing history, since he expected his readers to understand that he wasn't writing history about an actual person.
"Fact": Luke claimed to be writing history because he thought what he was writing was history about an actual person (though putting his own twist on things).
"Mistaken": Luke didn't claim to be writing history. The claim was interpolated or misinterpreted.

Why not just Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

Quote:

I don't think many would choose "Mistaken", so we can leave it aside . .

How convenient. .

Quote:

<snip>

You can claim that Luke is of the same genre as Mark, but these are clearly two different composition, written in different styles of Greek, for different audiences. Luke puts up a thin pretense of being historical.

Quote:

I think we can rule out "Fraud". ...

No, you can't. Especially if you call it pious fraud.

Quote:

...

From what we can tell, no-one thought that Luke was writing "Fiction". This included a lot of educated Christians converting in the Second Century. Luke seems to be thinking that he is writing "Fact".

Are you sure? Could it be allegory?

If these educated Christians thought it was fact, why was the basis of their conversion generally Greek philosophy, or reading the Hebrew Scriptures? None of them seem to have investigated the facts about Jesus.

Quote:

And that gLuke appears to be the same genre as aMark and aMatthew, then it would be reasonable to think that they were written as "Fact" also. That is, it would be strange that aLuke would write in the same style as the others, if he thought he was writing Fact and they were Fiction.

Except that he didn't write in the same style, and he didn't write in the style of contemporary historians.

aa5874 · 10-14-2011, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the author of Slavonic Josephus was from the 1st century.

Please, when I say "records" I refer to CREDIBLE sources NOT Slavonic Josephus.

The author of Slavonic Josephus may have plagerised gMatthew
.

Thanks for the clarification. I was pulling your leg anyway.

I don't believe you at all. And you can't pull my legs. Your hands will FALL off.

Now, according to Bart Ehrman there are Major differences in the Gospels.

Please read this Excerpt from Bart Ehrman in a debate with William Craig.

'

Quote:

.....We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another.

You don't need to take my word for this; simply look yourself. I tell my students that the reason we don't notice there's so many differences in the Gospels is because we read the Gospels vertically, from top to bottom.

You start at the top of Mark, you read through to the bottom, you start at the top of Matthew, read it through the bottom, sounds a lot like Mark, then you read Luke top to bottom, sounds a lot like Matthew and Mark, read John, a little bit different, sounds about the same.

The reason is because we're reading them vertically.

The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontallyP. Read one story in Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up with.

You come up with major differences......

See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

When gMatthew's and gLuke's birth narratives are examined there are MAJOR differences. The differences are so massive that Both are INCOMPATIBLE and appear to be complete Fiction.

gMatthew's birth narrative was completely SECRET but gLuke's was KNOWN PUBLICLY with an Angelic Celebration in the Open Air.

But they both claim Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

Someone must have known that they were writing fiction.

TedM · 10-14-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When gMatthew's and gLuke's birth narratives are examined there are MAJOR differences. The differences are so massive that Both are INCOMPATIBLE and appear to be complete Fiction.

Someone must have known that they were writing fiction.

The appearance of fiction does not lead to your conclusion automatically. There are a number of reasons the authors may have not known they were writing fiction, if that is what it was.

aa5874 · 10-14-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When gMatthew's and gLuke's birth narratives are examined there are MAJOR differences. The differences are so massive that Both are INCOMPATIBLE and appear to be complete Fiction.

Someone must have known that they were writing fiction.

The appearance of fiction does not lead to your conclusion automatically. There are a number of reasons the authors may have not known they were writing fiction, if that is what it was.

WHat nonsense!!!

The appearance of fiction cannot ever automatically lead to VERACITY.

FICTION automatically supports fiction UNTIL it can be shown otherwise.

The TRUTH AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORT THE TRUTH until it can be shown otherwise.

The birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are FICTION and AUTOMATICALLY support FICTION.

Both claim Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and that AUTOMATICALLY support FICTION.

The mere fact that an event is regarded as Fiction after investigation automatically means the event supports fiction.

That is PRECISELY why investigations are carried to find out if the birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke support Fiction or Facts.

Ghost stories are AUTOMATIC Fiction.

It is TOTALLY automatic.

JoeWallack · 10-14-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

IMO the reason the synoptics contain identical wording in many places is simple:

Whoever copied from the other took the material to be TRUE HISTORY.

JW:
Oh Ted, isn't it obvious that "Matthew"/"Luke" used "Mark" as a base because it was not only the original Jesus' narrative but the only Jesus narrative of their time. "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting disciple witness. "Matthew"/"Luke" both have primary themes of crediting disciple witness yet they both retain the bulk of "Mark's" detail discrediting the disciples. Why? Because there was no other source for a Jesus' narrative at the time.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

GakuseiDon · 10-14-2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So aLuke claims to be writing history. Thus the options are:

"Fraud": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He was trying to make people think he was writing history.
"Fiction": Luke claimed to be writing history but knew that he wasn't. He wasn't trying to make people think he was writing history, since he expected his readers to understand that he wasn't writing history about an actual person.
"Fact": Luke claimed to be writing history because he thought what he was writing was history about an actual person (though putting his own twist on things).
"Mistaken": Luke didn't claim to be writing history. The claim was interpolated or misinterpreted.

I don't think many would choose "Mistaken", so we can leave it aside . .

How convenient.

Has there been anyone who has claimed that Luke 1:1-4 was interpolated or misinterpreted, after all? I'm leaving it aside because I'm not aware of that. But it would be interesting to read any case like that.

JoeWallack · 10-14-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How convenient.

Has there been anyone who has claimed that Luke 1:1-4 was interpolated or misinterpreted, after all? I'm leaving it aside because I'm not aware of that. But it would be interesting to read any case like that.

JW:
It looks like Marcion had the original "Luke" which clearly did not have a Prologue. Marcion is the earliest attributed user of any Gospel, by the orthodox.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Toto · 10-14-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How convenient.

Has there been anyone who has claimed that Luke 1:1-4 was interpolated or misinterpreted, after all? I'm leaving it aside because I'm not aware of that. But it would be interesting to read any case like that.

What would it mean to say that something was interpolated, when Luke is obviously a compilation of earlier text? I don't know. From one point of view, everything that is in Luke but not in Mark or Matthew is an interpolation.

There is a scholarly cottage industry of people who write about the meaning of Luke's prologue - just google it - e.g. Once More: the purpose of Luke's Prologue. I gather from this that no one has come up with the definitive interpretation of what it means.

aa5874 · 10-14-2011, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How convenient.

Has there been anyone who has claimed that Luke 1:1-4 was interpolated or misinterpreted, after all? I'm leaving it aside because I'm not aware of that. But it would be interesting to read any case like that.

What would it mean to say that something was interpolated, when Luke is obviously a compilation of earlier text? I don't know. From one point of view, everything that is in Luke but not in Mark or Matthew is an interpolation.

There is a scholarly cottage industry of people who write about the meaning of Luke's prologue - just google it - e.g. Once More: the purpose of Luke's Prologue. I gather from this that no one has come up with the definitive interpretation of what it means.

It is most remarkable that Scholars cannot come up with a definitive interpretation of 4 verses.

Religion is now Rocket Science. Not even Scholars can interpret the Bible.

Kapyong · 10-14-2011, 09:56 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Sure, they could have mined the OT for details,

They DID mine the OT for the details of Jesus' story.
Not from any historical tradition.

There's your answer.

K.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.