Adam

The very best of you do it, Joe and Vork for starters. That's why I started prescribing for you guys my "Gospel according to the Atheists".
No, I have laboriously shown that there are underlying documents. Simple comparison between gospels confirms the agreement with at least a Passion Narrative and Q. Stylistic study confirms "L" in gLuke. I develop three of my eyewitnesses within these three.
You need to have an explanation for the claim I and most others make.
I'm the one who accepts no presuppositions. You presuppose once again that you can wave away all my evidence as not evidence.

Adam

Yes, my mistake in the header in bold, I entered "K" in error.
But that's as far as you read, apparently, because I had it right where I started writing about the third author. Did you read anything that wasn't in bold? I get so little substantive comment from you that I have to believe that you didn't.
I also slipped up when I corrected my Post #555 in #561 by entering Luke 22:1-38 the first time only and 22:1-28 the second time. Should be 22:1-38 in both places.

Doug Shaver

Bull. If you're not presupposing, you're not thinking. That is one thing the presuppositionalists have got right.

Doug Shaver

Repetition does not constitute proof of anything.

Sheshbazzar

Do you ever 'proof read', or carefully examine the integrity of the loads of self-important horse-shit you are posting here daily?

I have read every single word, statement, and line of your posts____repeatedly.
Otherwise, I wouldn't still be engaged in this asinine thread.

Just because you write out your unprovinanced speculations, it does not make them worthy of any acceptance. Or of engaging every damn 'loaded' and foolish sentence you compose.
The flaws inherent in your reasonings and methodology have been pointed out to you repeatedly, and by many others in this thread.
And this is going to continue until you give up, change your tact, or can come up with something SOLID that is not based upon your, or other religionists quoted opinions.
Not only did I read it, my further commetary clearly proves I also took the time to investigate your source beyond what you chose to reveal;

"Hmmm, one wonders why, in all of the above, you forget, or omit to mention the foremost profession of this James R. Edwards.???

A prominent Ordained Presbyterian Minister, should we expect him being a totally impartial scholar free from any and all religious biases or 'persuasions'???

Ya may as well be quoting from the f'n Pope! :banghead:

Presbyterian Ministers as 'Preachers of the Gobspell' are paid to make up any shit that will scratch your itching ears."







.

Stringbean

Agreed. Thats the way all of them are trained.

Adam

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience at your Presbyterian seminary. Was it PCUSA, PCA, Orthodox Preybyterian, Bible Presbyterian, or Evangelical?

Sheshbazzar

You takes yo choice, an you's pays yo money.

Now which of these here bags of crap is it ya want to buy? [/presbeyterian seminaries]

Adam

I grew up in a church with a Presbyterian minister, but I reacted against the predestination and OT biblicism.
More reason than you think, more than I was thinking. His The Hebrews Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic... focus seemed like an inerrantist dodge to avoid basing canonical gospels on a non-canonical, by finding an apostle (Matthew) as its author. I still can't see giving up Q.

However, Edwards has an Appendix II (most of it viewable on the preview) that lists every Semitism in gLuke. The verses with Semitisms are pretty much the verses that Grant (an expert in Proto-Luke) picked out in his chart on pg. 130-1 of his The Gospels (though Edward's L is larger) plus the beginning and ending chapters Edwards adds. Edwards on page 332 totals 703 Semitisms spread 505 in L (his "Special Luke"), 148 in differences where Luke parallels Mt or Mk, and just a few shared: 15 in the Triple Tradition, 26 with gMatthew, and 9 with gMark. That's phenomenally intense Semitisms in just the presumably Proto-Lucan part. Admittedly, Edwards adds to the usual L Ch. 1 and 2 (Infancy Narrative) and the Passion Narrative beyond the usual limit at 22:38. Based on his research he seems to have solved the key problem in Proto-Luke about the Passion Narrative. His statistics imply that Q and Twelve-Source were already translated into good Greek before the Proto-Luke author (Simon by my insight) got them. He had to translate the Passion Narrative and his own L from Aramaic to Greek, but with lots of Semitisms. The logic here indicates that even the Infancy Narrative was in Proto-Luke, because whatever Luke added and what he copied from gMark was in minimally Semitic Greek.

Sheshbazzar

Until you or your James R Edwards unearth the actual original 'simple texts' which you -theorize- to have once existed,
all either of you have is an unproven theory, and in spite of all of your elaborate and contrived attempts at hair-splitting you have no evidence that the Gospels were not originally penned by their authors essentially as they now exist.

Go, and dig up the actual texts that you or your James R. Edwards now -theorize- once existed, and you will have evidence. Without those actual ancient scrolls and/or codex's all either of you are now doing is a lot of farting out of the wrong end.

Just because you or J.K. Edwards write out your unprovinanced speculations, it does not make them worthy of any acceptance.
Or of engaging every damn 'loaded' and foolish sentence you compose.
The flaws inherent in your reasonings and methodology have been pointed out to you repeatedly, and by many others in this thread.
And this is going to continue until you give up, change your tact, or can come up with something SOLID that is not based upon your, or other religionists quoted opinions.




.