Steven Avery

A tad surprised at the venom/vulgarity that this endgendered.

Nonetheless :-) -- Shabbat Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, -- it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus, that thou mayest know the certainty of the things wherein thou wast instructed. (Luke 1:1-4, YLT)

Does taking what was delivered by those who became eyewitnesses and officers of the Word really mean "people who were present during the events described are the basis for what follows"? Or does it simply refer to those who first were witnesses to the risen Christ and the first to believe?

It does not "directly claim" to be contemporary to "eyewitnesses" but appears to be at least one step removed from them.

For example...? Please stick to only those "proven" accurate details that are relevant to the claim of eyewitness authorship.

Sticking to Luke/Acts, the only first person assertions are the "we" passages, correct? Since they are unique relative to the rest of the text in being written from that perspective, on what basis do you generalize the claim to the entire text?

Chris Weimer

No, it wasn't the quote, it was your stupidity, and then evasion of questions, that you support a ridiculous position accepted because you were taught it by your parents - a direct middle finger to everyone's intelligence - and then the incredulity of you saying that all this is intelligence.

Layman

I was told they were trying to improve the level of discourse on this forum. Cutting back on profanity and personal insults. That kind of thing.

I'm seeing real progress.

Layman

Even if we adopt methodological naturalism for the moment, why is the only explanation for an accurate prediction on this score a supernatural one? Could only God have forseen the coming war with Rome and its likely destruction of the Temple? Would not someone who spoke against resisiting Rome with violence have feared such an outcome?

Just because something that someone warned about came true does not mean that they necessarily had God tell them what was going to happen.

All that being said, I would date Luke-Acts anywhere between 62 - 85 AD.

Toto

We edit out personal insults. But we also believe in free speech as much as possible, so we do not necessarily edit out vulgarity or overly colorful language, unless it threatens to derail the thread (as this tangent seems to be doing.)

I would suggest that posters here refrain from using the words "stupidity" or "ridiculous" - even if they are justified. And use the "report post" button to your left instead of commenting on offensive language in thread.

Shabbat Shalom and happy Memorial Day weekend to all.

Layman

For my own learning, it seems to me that "your stupidity" might be a "personal insult" whereas "ridiculous position" would be more in the ballpark of a vigorous disagreement over ideas. That about right?

Chris Weimer

"Your stupidity" is only an insult to the idea, not the person.

Toto

This parsing of insults is off topic.

Until we get a moderator-admin consensus on the matter, I am asking participants in this thread to just avoid the words stupidity and ridiculous, and confine the discussion to the announced topic.


ETA: I am open to suggestions to splitting this thread. The thread was intended to be about the dating of Luke and the Pastorals, but we have side discussions of texts and naturalism and procedural things. PM me or another moderator if you think it would be worth while.

Toto

Steven Avery

> Praxeus 1) Luke/Acts directly claims to be based on eyewitnesses and
> contemporary to eyewitnesses, ergo 50 AD or so.
We are actually discussing
'became' vs. 'were'
and other translational and grammatical nuance....

Luke 1:2 (KJB)
Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;

I'd be happy to try to fly this by b-greek later, however let me say for now that "became eyewitensses" in English looks logically awkward, and Young, in my experience, tends to awkwardisms.

> Praxeus 2) As a historical work Luke has proven itself as
> extremely accurate and detailed, leading strong credence to the
> eyewitness claim.
With shabbat neigh, allow me to just grab one from an apologetics website.
http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity...ewtestament10/
Is the New Testament Historical
"Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio “Proconsul�, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read:
“As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia�
Gallio only held the post of Proconsul for one year from July 1, 52 AD and that one year overlapped with Paul ministry in Corinth. This specific information verified the title of Gallio and also the year of Paul ministry in Corinth.

Granted, I haven't researched this, but off the top it looks like a good example, even coming from Josh :-)

> Praxeus 4) The first person assertions make all the books of Paul
> and Peter and Luke/Acts either blatant forgeries and frauds, or
> they are books written around A.D. 40-70.
The book claims to be a unit written by one person, Luke, who was contemporaneous with Paul (and is writing in the A.D. 45-55 A.D. period for Luke). If any part of the book was written by someone else, 30 or 50 years later, then the book is falsified as to its introductory claim. Honestly, I am not understanding your question, so maybe you could devise an alternate scenario that is not Luke writing Luke/Acts between 45 and 65 AD that you feel would maintain the integrity of the text.

Shabbat Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/