TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.

Sad, really.

---

I don't hate "scripture." Actually, I find it rather interesting and intriguing. When I first heard some of these issues raised and pointed out by the religion department when I was at Baylor, I reacted the same way that you react to my views. I took umbrage because it went against everything I was taught to believe. Yet it was that dissonance that pushed me to critically examine what was truth and what was not truth. It wasn't until I began to consider all aspects of life, science, and critical analyisis of scripture or biblical criticism, and all religion in general, that I change my views. I realized that my beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, instead forcing reality to conform to a tradition of religious beliefs. When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

---

critical at 40,000 feet? That's a big picture and not a detailed look. At 40,000 ft my artwork can match Picasso.

Sam and others have given you a really good detailed analysis of portions of Luke. You accept what agrees with you and reject what doesn't. That is hardly scientific.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.

Sad, really.

---

I don't hate "scripture." Actually, I find it rather interesting and intriguing. When I first heard some of these issues raised and pointed out by the religion department when I was at Baylor, I reacted the same way that you react to my views. I took umbrage because it went against everything I was taught to believe. Yet it was that dissonance that pushed me to critically examine what was truth and what was not truth. It wasn't until I began to consider all aspects of life, science, and critical analyisis of scripture or biblical criticism, and all religion in general, that I change my views. I realized that my beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, instead forcing reality to conform to a tradition of religious beliefs. When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

---

critical at 40,000 feet? That's a big picture and not a detailed look. At 40,000 ft my artwork can match Picasso.

Sam and others have given you a really good detailed analysis of portions of Luke. You accept what agrees with you and reject what doesn't. That is hardly scientific.

---

Rather, I would suggest your rationalization and convoluted reasoning to support fast held beliefs forms and distorts your perception of reality.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.

Sad, really.

---

I don't hate "scripture." Actually, I find it rather interesting and intriguing. When I first heard some of these issues raised and pointed out by the religion department when I was at Baylor, I reacted the same way that you react to my views. I took umbrage because it went against everything I was taught to believe. Yet it was that dissonance that pushed me to critically examine what was truth and what was not truth. It wasn't until I began to consider all aspects of life, science, and critical analyisis of scripture or biblical criticism, and all religion in general, that I change my views. I realized that my beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, instead forcing reality to conform to a tradition of religious beliefs. When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

---

critical at 40,000 feet? That's a big picture and not a detailed look. At 40,000 ft my artwork can match Picasso.

Sam and others have given you a really good detailed analysis of portions of Luke. You accept what agrees with you and reject what doesn't. That is hardly scientific.

---

Rather, I would suggest your rationalization and convoluted reasoning to support fast held beliefs forms and distorts your perception of reality.

---

and if you are correct regarding me, it does nothing for you. It's the same as if you are incorrect regarding me, it means nothing.

You should HONESTLY investigate whether you are correct regarding Christianity. That want fall under "nothing".

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying really, really hard to pretend the experts on Scripture agree with his Scripture-hating assumptions.

Sad, really.

---

I don't hate "scripture." Actually, I find it rather interesting and intriguing. When I first heard some of these issues raised and pointed out by the religion department when I was at Baylor, I reacted the same way that you react to my views. I took umbrage because it went against everything I was taught to believe. Yet it was that dissonance that pushed me to critically examine what was truth and what was not truth. It wasn't until I began to consider all aspects of life, science, and critical analyisis of scripture or biblical criticism, and all religion in general, that I change my views. I realized that my beliefs should conform to the evidence of reality, instead forcing reality to conform to a tradition of religious beliefs. When you step back and view religion objectively (from the 40,000 feet analogy), it just doesn't hold up to critical analysis.

---

critical at 40,000 feet? That's a big picture and not a detailed look. At 40,000 ft my artwork can match Picasso.

Sam and others have given you a really good detailed analysis of portions of Luke. You accept what agrees with you and reject what doesn't. That is hardly scientific.

---

Rather, I would suggest your rationalization and convoluted reasoning to support fast held beliefs forms and distorts your perception of reality.

---

That applies to you just as much, TS. Wonder if that occurred to you?

Your source? "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

Waco1947 said:

---

Your source? "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

---

I cited the source in the post you copied this from.

"Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John. Irenaeus wrote:"

You can see the excerpt from Irenaeus' seminal work,
Against Heresies, here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Your source? "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

---

I cited the source in the post you copied this from.

"Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John. Irenaeus wrote:"

You can see the excerpt from Irenaeus' seminal work,
Against Heresies, here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

---

Yes secondary sources although having their value are prone to error and prejudice and mostly written to "fill in lord,"

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Your source? "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

---

I cited the source in the post you copied this from.

"Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John. Irenaeus wrote:"

You can see the excerpt from Irenaeus' seminal work,
Against Heresies, here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

---

Yes secondary sources although having their value are prone to error and prejudice and mostly written to "fill in lord,"

---

If you have a first- or second-century source that you prefer, I'd love to see it.

Huh? Historicity does not matter except Jesus lived.

Waco1947 said:

---

Huh? Historicity does not matter except Jesus lived.

---

Waco caught lying again, I see.

Facts matter, Waco. Even though you hate them, facts matter.

Waco1947 said:

---

Huh? Historicity does not matter except Jesus lived.

---

... and died, and was buried, and rose again on the third day.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Huh? Historicity does not matter except Jesus lived.

---

... and died, and was buried, and rose again on the third day.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

---

None of which meets any criteria of historicity

47 believes history started with the publishing of the Communist Manifesto. He dates things BKM and AKM

GolemIII said:

---

47 believes history started with the publishing of the Communist Manifesto. He dates things BKM and AKM

---

"Lenin lived.

Lenin lives.

Lenin will always live."

Moscow 1925, Waco 1947