evolution and scientists motives

[AV1611VET]

In reading several sources concerning this I find that there is disagreement among scholars. Rev. Raymond Brown (1973) The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, call Luke's genealogy a fabrication.

Just out of curiosity, does he come to the same conclusion concerning the bodily resurrection?

 

[good brother]

In reading several sources concerning this I find that there is disagreement among scholars. Rev. Raymond Brown (1973) The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, call Luke's genealogy a fabrication.

Luke was a meticulous historian. There is absolutely no reason to believe he would want to fabricate any stories.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Luke was a meticulous historian. There is absolutely no reason to believe he would want to fabricate any stories.

There is no evidence to support that claim. We know nothing about his motives or his accuracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Luke was a meticulous historian. There is absolutely no reason to believe he would want to fabricate any stories.

Indeed!

Let them make their false accusations.

Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

 

[good brother]

There is no evidence to support that claim. We know nothing about his motives or his accuracy.

We have his own testimony. You seem to dismiss his testimony, though personal testimonies have put people away or exonerated them through our court system.


He says he is writing an orderly account of what happened. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

 

[Tomk80]

We have his own testimony. You seem to dismiss his testimony, though personal testimonies have put people away or exonerated them through our court system.


He says he is writing an orderly account of what happened. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

That is not evidence that he actually did.

Edited to add: Since this apparently adds weight for you, with the above sentence I have written an orderly and accurate assessment of the evidence you have presented so far.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

We have his own testimony. You seem to dismiss his testimony, though personal testimonies have put people away or exonerated them through our court system.


He says he is writing an orderly account of what happened. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

People can make all sorts of claims when they write something, it doesn't make it true. For instance, I'm sure you are all too familiar with the census/Quirinus problem in Luke.

 

[good brother]

That is not evidence that he actually did.

Edited to add: Since this apparently adds weight for you, with the above sentence I have written an orderly and accurate assessment of the evidence you have presented so far.

Why don't you become a lawyer and use your argument above here to rebut any and all eye witness testimonies. Let me know how that works out.

 

[good brother]

People can make all sorts of claims when they write something, it doesn't make it true. For instance, I'm sure you are all too familiar with the census/Quirinus problem in Luke.

What problem might that be?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What problem might that be?

You've never heard of it? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What problem might that be?

The year was wrong for the Bethlehem story and the census. Jesus was over 10 when the survey occurred.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not evidence that he actually did.

What's your evidence that Darwin wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races?

Can you daisy-chain a list of names of people who know this ... right back to Mr. Darwin, himself?

If not, then is it okay with you if we believe Luke wrote Luke, etc.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's your evidence that Darwin wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races?

Can you daisy-chain a list of names of people who know this ... right back to Mr. Darwin, himself?

If not, then is it okay with you if we believe Luke wrote Luke, etc.?

Actually we can do much better than that. We can find countless contemporaneous articles referring to Darwin's writings. There are no contemporaneous articles about Luke's writings.

 

[Tomk80]

Why don't you become a lawyer and use your argument above here to rebut any and all eye witness testimonies. Let me know how that works out.

The reliability of eyewitness accounts is questionable. There have been quite a lot of wrongful convictions based on eyewitness accounts, a fact that courts are becoming more and more acquainted with. And that is for eyewitnesses of whom we can actually check the credibility.

"This account is credible because I say it is" has never been a convincing line in courts, but that is exactly the basis on which you want us to accept Luke.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

We have his own testimony. You seem to dismiss his testimony, though personal testimonies have put people away or exonerated them through our court system.

He says he is writing an orderly account of what happened. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

You can't use a text to prove that text. That's circular logic.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Why don't you become a lawyer and use your argument above here to rebut any and all eye witness testimonies. Let me know how that works out.

Actually, eye-witness testimony is not considered very reliable under the law.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually we can do much better than that. We can find countless contemporaneous articles referring to Darwin's writings. There are no contemporaneous articles about Luke's writings.

Since I take it your answer is NO, I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of salt.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Since I take it your answer is NO, I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of salt.

Did you understand the relevance of his point or did it sail past you in your happy pink cloud of denial?

 

[Split Rock]

What's your evidence that Darwin wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races?

Can you daisy-chain a list of names of people who know this ... right back to Mr. Darwin, himself?

If not, then is it okay with you if we believe Luke wrote Luke, etc.?

I thought "daisy-chaining" was a big no-no for you, buddy.

 

[Split Rock]

GOD created everything. Evolution is an invalid theory of there being no GOD. GOD is real and is eternal, which means you cannot simply dismiss him by making a theorem.

Evolution says nothing about your god. If you disagree, show me a valid definition that says different.