Evidence

[bhsmte]

The author of the 19th century book Supernatural Religion was also anonymous.

Can you tell me why that is important in accepting what a book contains. What way does anonymity influence your acceptance of a piece of writting?

To determine the credibility of the writing, it is always a positive to know who wrote it to determine; motivations of that person, reputation, who they knew, which are important pieces to know. Granted, you can determine credibility with an anonymous piece, but it makes it more difficult. The gospels being anonymous, is one of many pieces (and likely not a major one) that gives scholars and historians pause.

Luke the Physician, is the author of the third synoptic Gospel, this has been uniformly supported from decades before this date of 200 years after Jesus died. For instance in the Muratorian Canon, and the works of Ireneaus.

There are scholars who will tell you that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were indeed the authors of all four gospels and won't hesitate to do so. I have yet to see Luke being the author of Luke, being part of mainstream scholarship, in the investigation that I have done and the consensus is; all four gospels are anonymous.

 

[dms1972]

No one is wholely 'objective', christian or non-christian, and I don't think you understand the term properly.

Personally I begin with something coming to me from outside so to speak, outside my mind, lifetime, influence.

How 'objective' is scholarship 19 centuries later?

 

[Colter]

Was he supplied that evidence?

If God can supply that evidence to Thomas, why can't he supply the same evidence to us?

Because human wisdom must evolve, that is the way God has designed the program of ascension. Man is, in effect, experiencing his way back to God through a regiment of training and education starting out as we have on this first evolutionary world.

* There were also occasions where people witnessed miracles but still had no interest in searching for God afterwards.

* The apostles also said "Show us the Father and that will be enough"....Jesus would then exclaim "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?…...

I like these considerations in answer to the question you asked about why? Why is so much hidden from us?????

"The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:


(51.5) 3:5.6 1. Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

(51.6) 3:5.7 2. Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

(51.7) 3:5.8 3. Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

(51.8) 3:5.9 4. Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

(51.9) 3:5.10 5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

(51.10) 3:5.11 6. Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

(51.11) 3:5.12 7. Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

(51.12) 3:5.13 8. Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

(51.13) 3:5.14 9. Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities." UB 1955​

 

[bhsmte]

No one is wholely 'objective', christian or non-christian, and I don't think you understand the term properly.

Personally I begin with something coming to me from outside so to speak, outside my mind, lifetime, influence.

How 'objective' is scholarship 19 centuries later?

Very few things are 100% objective, but we have tools help with objectivity, such as the tool historians use; the historical method.

IMO, when you really analyze the opinions of many of these scholars and how they justify their opinions, it is not difficult to see who uses the historical method, more loosely.

And clearly, there is going to be inherent bias, since the majority of these folks are Christian, but even the moderate Christian scholars will state; the NT is more theology, than it is history.

To me, it is the equivalent of letting tobacco company scientists, determine if smoking is bad for your health.

 

[dms1972]

Granted, you can determine credibility with an anonymous piece, but it makes it more difficult.


But its been established since around 170 AD, in the case of Luke the physician being the author - and who the recipent / publisher also was: Theophilus.

So why are some so slow to accept this? 1800 years that's some 'pause'.


I really don't put a lot of stock in most of the scholarship of the 19th century either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because human wisdom must evolve, that is the way God has designed the program of ascension.

Yet another empty assertion.

You claim that we won't be shown evidence, even though the Bible claims that people in the past were shown evidence. Your claims are reubtted by the Bible itself, and yet you still claim that your words are the same as God's.

 

[bhsmte]

But its been established since around 170 AD, in the case of Luke the physician being the author - and who the recipent / publisher also was: Theophilus.

How many credible scholar sources do you have to support this?

So why are some so slow to accept this? 1800 years that's some 'pause'.

Because they don't see the evidence to support it?

I really don't put a lot of stock in most of the scholarship of the 19th century either.

I didn't know we were talking about 19th century scholarship?

 

[dms1972]

IMO, when you really analyze the opinions of many of these scholars and how they justify their opinions, it is not difficult to see who uses the historical method, more loosely.

"more loosely" what do you mean?

Ok lets say that theologians such as Bultmann are singularly unequipped to look at the Gospels with either a literary or a historical acumen.

So we should then look to non-theologians, with literary background, or historical background.

Thats what I do : I read CS Lewis, and Herbert Butterfield amongst others.

Now I think you'll concede that neither of us would have the same level of acumen as these two, one a professional literary critic, and the other a professional historian.

So who should I listen to, you or they?

 

[Colter]

Yet another empty assertion.

You claim that we won't be shown evidence, even though the Bible claims that people in the past were shown evidence. Your claims are reubtted by the Bible itself, and yet you still claim that your words are the same as God's.

Its not empty to me, in fact it's very meaningful and it satisfies as a good answer to the same question for me.

You are, in effect, demanding the answers to the test before you do any work to find them. Its a form of human laziness.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its not empty to me, in fact it's very meaningful and it satisfies as a good answer to the same question for me.

Empty means "without evidence".

You are, in effect, demanding the answers to the test before you do any work to find them. Its a form of human laziness.

I am demanding the answers from the people who claim to have them. Apparently, you don't have the answers, or the evidence.

The real human laziness is found in the theists who expect everyone else to prove their beliefs true.

 

[bhsmte]

"more loosely" what do you mean?

Ok lets say that theologians such as Bultmann are singularly unequipped to look at the Gospels with either a literary or a historical acumen.

So we should then look to non-theologians, with literary background, or historical background.

Thats what I do : I read CS Lewis, and Herbert Butterfield amongst others.

Now I think you'll concede that neither of us would have the same level of acumen as these two, one a professional literary critic, and the other a professional historian.

So who should I listen to, you or they?

You can listen to whoever you like.

If you have paid attention though and have actually thoroughly investigated the work of scholars and historians in regards to the NT, you will clearly understand, their opinions are all over the place. So, if you pick out 1 or 2 you like (probably because you agree with them), it is highly likely, you have a greater chance of them having specific bias.

The historical method is well established and not a difficult method to understand. When you understand it, you can then look at each persons opinion, see how they justify their opinion and determine if they are following the historical method as it was intended, or are they putting significantly more weight to one area of the method and completely ignoring another portion of it. I find this quite often, when analyzing the opinions of the more conservative scholars.

 

[dms1972]

"Because they don't see the evidence to support it?"

They most certainly do - they see plenty of evidence.

 

[dms1972]

If you have paid attention though and have actually thoroughly investigated the work of scholars and historians in regards to the NT, you will clearly understand, their opinions are all over the place.

You know it really doesn't bother me. Because I can tell when someone knows something of what they talk about.

So go back to reading the Bible, and decide for yourself.

I have experiential evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is alive today.

 

[Colter]

Empty means "without evidence".



I am demanding the answers from the people who claim to have them. Apparently, you don't have the answers, or the evidence.

The real human laziness is found in the theists who expect everyone else to prove their beliefs true.

Am I not clear? How much more clear can I be? I do NOT claim to have PROOF of my faith, my God that would satisfy you. I cannot prove the existence of God beyond a doubt for you. But I know him, he's way cool!

And btw, in my theology, the only thing my resurrection on the Mansion worlds will add to me is the fact of survival, God will still be a matter of faith. A resurrected person could reason that the intelligent beings of the celestial world are just as naturally occurring as atheist claim man is on earth from uncaused evolution.

In my theology Lucifer himself lost faith in the unseen father and launched an ideological war in heaven against the rule of the Father in the Son.

 

[dms1972]

The historical method is well established and not a difficult method to understand.

Thanks

 

[bhsmte]

They most certainly do - they see plenty of evidence.

What are your credible sources supporting luke wrote luke?

 

[bhsmte]

You know it really doesn't bother me. Because I can tell when someone knows something of what they talk about.

So go back to reading the Bible, and decide for yourself.

I have experiential evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is alive today.

I have desire no desire to change your position

You asked me about my investigation into the NT and i responded.

 

[dms1972]

In my theology Lucifer himself lost faith in the unseen father and launched an ideological war in heaven against the rule of the Father in the Son.

I don't know to be honest whether it was ideological., There is plenty I can get by without knowing, understanding. If the God the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ wills it I shall understand, if not He still can keep me safe trusting Him through his Word.

 

[dms1972]

Originally Posted by bhsmte

What are your credible sources supporting luke wrote luke?​

I have mentioned two of them already, were you not reading?

The Muratorian Canon and the writings of Ireneaus.
​

 

[bhsmte]

I have mentioned two of them already, were you not reading?

The Muratorian Canon and the writings of Ireneaus.
[/INDENT]

Those are not the opinions of credible scholars