Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-24-2002, 07:14 AM

Great link, Reasonable! Very informative.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 05-24-2002, 08:30 AM

Alexis
I did not say you spout absolute crap. I did not denigrate everything you spoke of.
I only said I find the idea of doing things to "please ones professors" to be absolute nonsense (ok, I withdraw the word crap).
This is an attack on the idea, NOT you as a person.

Vorkosigan

Quote:

Intense One: calling people ass-kissers is entirely uncalled for. An apology is merited.

kiss-ass : To act submissively or obsequiously in order to gain favor.

I still find the idea of only saying things that please ones professors tantamount to ass-kissing.
I did not call Alexis an ass-kisser.

Quote:

Why do you owe me big time? Feel free to steal it and use it elsewhere, as you wish, if that's what you mean.

This doesn't sound very friendly, but I take it you are taking it out on me for not being very nice to Alexis.
Dark Jedi

Quote:

Intensity,
Personal attacks are not conducive to debate.
Please debate the issues, not the person.

I have called an idea absolute nonsense. Tell me how this is a personal attack.

ReasonableDoubt
You have simply re-posted what I posted and made it a bit longer by including superfluous material.

Quote:

and, perhaps, try to be less rude

If you mean desisting from using words like crap, point taken.

Thanks for the link.

Dark Jedi · 05-24-2002, 12:03 PM

I refer to you calling them "kiss-ass". That is a personal attack.

Dark Jedi · 05-24-2002, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with that assessment.

I have read further back, and now see the query's intent and direction. I agree with your assessment of my assessment.
The question was leading to validity of conclusion, not attacking the debater.

Ted Hoffman · 05-25-2002, 07:20 AM

CX
I knew I just needed some time..
You said:

Quote:

Um...Xian tradition doesn't say the Luke was an eyewitness anyway. It says he was a companion of Paul (also not a witness). If you ask me the authorial attribution for GLk is the most plausible of the 4 gospels...

You later added:

Quote:

Luke is nowhere considered a disciple. He is not mentioned in the gospels at all. What gave you this idea?...

I will provide Kevans quote as provided by Josh McDowell in his book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (page 214)
Dr. Ernest Kevan was principle of the London Bible College until his death in 1965.

McDowell in ETDAV quotes Ernest Kevan from The Resurrection of Christ who says:

Quote:

"The book of the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke sometime between A.D. 63 and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He explains in his preface to his Gospel that he had gathered his
information from eye-witnesses, and this, it may be concluded, was also the way he prepared the
book of the Acts. Further, as certain sections in the history show, by the use of the pronoun "we" , Luke was himself a participator in some of the events he narrates. He was in the midst of the early preaching, and took a share in the great happenings of the early days. Luke is, therefore a contemporary and first-hand witness...It is impossible to suppose that the early church did not know its own history; and the very fact of the acceptance by the Church of this book is evidence of its accuracy (Kevan, RC,4-5)

CX, I would be very interested in what you have to say about this considering your earlier assertions (that Luke is not an eyewitness).
Most of things Luke in Acts mention were privy to only the disciples: anyone arguing for him being a material eyewitness ia also arguing for his discipleship. In any case, it has been argued by christian scholars that the number 12 was not physical but symbolic.

PS: I am in strong disagreement with Kevan over the matter. I just wanted to demonstrate that your assertion: that christian tradition does not say Luke was an eyewitness, is not shared by many christians. And I have provided two christian apologetics-cum scholars.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

Toto · 05-25-2002, 09:46 AM

Has McDowell no shame? He claims Luke claimed to have gathered information from eyewitnesses, when Luke says:

Quote:

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

There is no indication here that Luke claimed to have talked to any eyewitnesses himself - just that things were handed down from eyewitnesses.

Ted Hoffman · 05-25-2002, 09:56 AM

Toto,
Strictly speaking, McDowell only quoted Ernest Kevan (of course in the context, he quoted him because he agreed with him). But your outrage is justified.
Its not that he has no shame; its an occupational hazard of christian apologetics: they can scratch the bottom of the barrel so long as they are doing it for the lord.

And CX,
I have noticed you have not replied to my earlier posts over relevant issues. I will appreciate a response.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

Jayhawker Soule · 05-25-2002, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
And CX, I have noticed you have not replied to my earlier posts over relevant issues. I will appreciate a response.

To answer an earlier question, this (in very small part) is what I meant about being rude.

Peter Kirby · 05-27-2002, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:


CX, I would be very interested in what you have to say about this considering your earlier assertions (that Luke is not an eyewitness).
Most of things Luke in Acts mention were privy to only the disciples: anyone arguing for him being a material eyewitness ia also arguing for his discipleship. In any case, it has been argued by christian scholars that the number 12 was not physical but symbolic.

PS: I am in strong disagreement with Kevan over the matter. I just wanted to demonstrate that your assertion: that christian tradition does not say Luke was an eyewitness, is not shared by many christians. And I have provided two christian apologetics-cum scholars.

I thought someone else would have said it, but since that hasn't happened...

While there is no telling what the man in the pew thinks, the traditional Christian view is that Luke was indeed a participant in some of the events he narrates, particularly in the events narrated in Acts termed the "we" sections. Luke the physician was thought to have been a companion of Paul. But there are no "we" sections in the Gospel of Luke, and by the author's own preface, it is deduced that the author of Luke-Acts was not present at the events recorded in the Gospel of Luke. It is clear, then, that we must distinguish between the author as an eyewitness for the Gospel of Luke and the author as an eyewitness for the Acts of the Apostles. It is typical to deny eyewitness status to the Gospel while granting it for parts of Acts.

best,
Peter Kirby

HRG · 05-27-2002, 11:14 PM

Excellent post, if I may say so! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan (in part):

Just look at any other collection of legends and stories, like Robin Hood, or Arthur or the Prince of Huai Nan. Arthur and Robin Hood seem to be composites of various legends. In the Prince of Huai-nan's case, he is a major figure of Taoist legend. According to the legend, he was raised up to heaven in the presence of (need it be written?) reliable witnesses (whose names vary with the telling). Fortunately we also possess a dynastic history that mentions him. In that history, he and his head got separated over a little spot of revolt against the throne. Note that except for the name, the two stories have nothing in common.

A case where we can directly compare history and legend is the Nibelungenlied. It contains obvious myths (Siegfried's dragon slaying) and stories of historic origin (the defeat of the Burgundians by Huns and Romans). Actual places (Worms, Bechelaren = P�chlarn, a town on the Danube) are mentioned, and historical personnages appear (Etzel = Attila, Dietrich von Bern = Theoderich). But the distance between reality and legend is large; for instance, Attila was long dead when Theoderich was born.

Regards,
HRG.

BTW - from one Bujold fan to another -, Miles' latest adventure ("Diplomatic Immunity") can be bought as an electronic book at <a href="http://www.baen.com." target="_blank">www.baen.com.</a>

05-25-2002, 09:56 AM	#67
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Toto, Strictly speaking, McDowell only quoted Ernest Kevan (of course in the context, he quoted him because he agreed with him). But your outrage is justified. Its not that he has no shame; its an occupational hazard of christian apologetics: they can scratch the bottom of the barrel so long as they are doing it for the lord. And CX, I have noticed you have not replied to my earlier posts over relevant issues. I will appreciate a response. [ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

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

05-24-2002, 07:14 AM	#61
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Great link, Reasonable! Very informative. Vorkosigan

05-24-2002, 12:03 PM	#63
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	I refer to you calling them "kiss-ass". That is a personal attack.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.