Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 04-01-2008, 06:56 AM

This..is...Spamta!

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

The N.T. is scientifically 99.5% textually pure.
Reference: N.T. has approximately 20,000 lines of text.
Only 400 lines are in doubt. That’s about 400 words. None bearing any weight on doctrinal issues.

The N.T. gains further support from patristic quotations

In this light, I ask you to scientifically support your assessment of the N.T.
Then we can compare and discuss further.

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_1

Quote:

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us,

1:2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,

1:3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus;

1:4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Per The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

Hammer Time!

JW:

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 53

Quote:

It was Paul who found St. Luke, one of the seventy-two who had been scattered, brought him to repentance, and <made him> his own follower, both a co-worker in the Gospel and an apostle.

JW:
eHP probably wrote this around the middle of the 4th century. An apparent source based on extant (written early 3rd century):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm

On the End of the World

Hippolytus

Quote:

49
...
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.

15. Luke the evangelist.

These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered15 by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me."15 But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel15 on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.

JW:
And the apparent scriptural reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=6&version=31

John 6

Quote:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

JW:
Note the key Assertians eHP makes regarding "Luke":

1) "Luke" was an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" gave up the Faith.

3) Paul (re)converted "Luke" and made him a follower of Paul.

Oviously this is Contradicted by the orthodox orthodox description of "Luke":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Church History (Book III)

Eusebius

Quote:

Chapter 4. The First Successors of the Apostles.
...
7. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. Luke 1:2-3 The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel."
...

Chapter 24. The Order of the Gospels.
...
15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.

Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:

1) "Luke" was not an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" never gave up the Faith.

3) Paul apparently did not convert "Luke".

And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).

Regarding "Luke" than who only wrote the most important Gospel for the non-Jews and the only supposed link from the supposed Disciples to the subsequent Church we have the following related issues:

1) Was "Luke" a Disciple of Jesus?

2) Did "Luke" give up the Faith?

3) Did Paul convert "Luke"?

4) Why did Eusebius give a Tradition for "Luke" that he apparently had no clear source for and not mention the other Tradition for "Luke" that presumably he had a clear source for (Hippolytus)? Pete?

5) eHP and Hippo create doubt as to the originality of the prologue to "Luke". Not the type of thing a Disciple of Jesus would write.

6) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!

7) Going PJ for lucky #7, the earlier/original Tradition has "Luke" leaving the Faith and being rehabilitated by Paul. A reference/clue to Marcion having the original "Luke" and its rehabilitation to Paulian orthodoxy?

I have Faith remez to Doubt whether the 4 lines of Prologue (which I Am pretty sure translate to significantly more than 4 words but won't give an exact count since Dr. Gibson may be reading this) are not in Doubt due to:

1) The earlier Tradition of Hippolytus/Epiphanius that "Luke" was a witness.

2) The apparent lack of Prologue in Marcion's version.

So you can add "Luke's" Beginning to "Mark's" Ending as seriously in Doubt. Fortunately for you though, the placement of this Doubt, the Ending of the Original Gospel and the Beginning of the Last Synoptic Gospel is totally at random.

What I am sure about is how you could have been misled as we have fine Christian Bible scholars here such as Stephen and Ben who obviously have devoted large amounts of time and effort to outstanding websites on the Christian Bible yet regarding the above only give the testimony of Eusebius and not Epiphanius.

Joseph

"Why buy into speculative bullshit when milking Christian Assertians is free." - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Johnny Skeptic · 04-01-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But you do not know what the Bible is, or rather was. The Bible was a collection of original writings. No one knows what the originals said, and how many times they have been changed. Even if we had the originals, I would not trust them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If so, then we have no ancient literature of any sort, never mind the Bible.

What are your main intentions at this forum?

Johnny Skeptic · 04-02-2008, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But you do not know what the Bible is, or rather was. The Bible was a collection of original writings. No one knows what the originals said, and how many times they have been changed. Even if we had the originals, I would not trust them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If so, then we have no ancient literature of any sort, never mind the Bible.

It depends upon 1) the intentions of the writers of ancient literature, and 2)the methods that the writers of ancient literature had available to them to transmit their writings to future generations. If a God intended to communicate with humans, I am not aware of any good reasons why he would use copies of copies of ancient literature as a primary means of communicating with humans since he would have far better means of communcating with them. Ancient historians did all that they were able to do to effectively communicate with future generations. If a God inspired the Bible, he has not nearly done all that he could have done to effectively communciate with future generations, and he has needlessly caused a lot of confusion.

It is obvious what ancient historians were trying to accomplish, but what is the God of the Bible trying to accomplish with copies of copies of ancient Bible texts?

remez · 04-02-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:

1) "Luke" was not an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" never gave up the Faith.

3) Paul apparently did not convert "Luke".

And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).

The Panarion is on a very long list of books I desire to read. So help me out here.

Since the Panarion addresses heresy’s often based on nothing more then heresay….
Then……………
what exactly was eHP’s source for this anti-tradition that you place your faith in?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.