Telling stories

[Zzyzx]

.
Telling stories

Religions in general appear to be based upon people telling / writing stories about supernatural entities and events – and other people believing the stories and adding more of their own stories, testimonials and opinions.

Are there any exceptions?

Is it unreasonable to ask to be shown that the stories are true?

[OnceConvinced]

Does Matthew 12:39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. speak to this that it is not part of His chosen method to provide proof to those with no faith?

Was Gideon wicked and adulterous? He is an example of a bible hero that set out fleeces before God asking for specific signs. He got them. God didn't condemn him at all. Why is it ok for Gideon and not the rest of us?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 20 by Realworldjack]

Does it make a difference if the stories and letters are truthful, accurate, um-embellished, un-distorted accounts of events that literally happened in the real world?

Yes, it makes a tremendous difference, and I do not believe that we should simply assume that the things recorded are true, but rather go through the process of analyzing them, to determine if they hold up to scrutiny.

Jack, nearly all of what I write here (as I trust you are aware) is asking for analysis to determine if Bible stories hold up to scrutiny.

In the same way, I do not believe we should simply assume the claims could not possibly be true, because they are to difficult to believe.

Many tales I regard as untruthful are based NOT on 'too difficult to believe� but rather on their contradiction with what is known of the real world. For instance, magic flying carpets, winged flying horses, staffs turning into snakes, Sun and Moon standing still (Earth ceasing rotation), someone living in 'the belly of a fish' for days, the Earth being flooded to the tops of mountains wiping out all life that breathes, etc.

If verifiable evidence can be presented to show that magic carpets can actually fly (etc), I am VERY interested. However, I will not take someone's word or story as verifiable evidence AND I will not show favoritism toward the tales of one group over tales of other groups.

So then, we have Christians who simply assume these things are true, but in reality they do not really know what they believe, or why they believe it.

Experience here in the Forum and here in the Bible Belt (and elsewhere in the nation) leads me to believe that the vast majority of those who self-identify as Christians do not seem to know 'why they believe it'.

However, I also believe there are many unbelievers who take a simplistic approach as well, and simply assume that they must be right, whether it be because of experiences they may have had, or because it is just to extraordinary to believe.

When you address me, I trust that you understand that is not the case – and that I have given a great deal of thought to the issues we discuss. Let's not be concerned about what other believers or non-believers think or say.

My point is, I do not simply assume I must be right. I studied, and analyzed these things for over two years before finally coming to my conclusions. Even though I have done this, I still do not believe I must, or have to be correct, rather I clearly understand the possibility of my error.

Jack, I have studied and analyzed these things for fifty years – including ten years debating in this Forum. However, seniority is no guarantee of correctness (or much of anything else).

We cannot be certain how many people actually analyze what it is they claim to believe concerning these things, as opposed to those who simply assume, or react over and against what is being said in the Bible. What I do know is, when I read the Bible, I come away with a completely different understanding than most Christians, as well as unbelievers. Is this because I am not reading it correctly? Or, is it because many simply assume what it must, or has to be saying?

It appears as though nearly every person who reads the Bible comes to different understandings than others who read. Perhaps the Bible is a mirror that reflects whatever a person wants to believe or think.

Another thing I know is, many times I am misunderstood here on this site, and it is not because of what I have posted, but rather I have demonstrated time after time, that it is because people simply assume what I must be saying since I am a Christian.

Agreed. People often categorize us and assume . . . An example: I am often labeled an Atheist and addressed as such in spite of my clear statement of theistic position in signature.

Again, the point is, I have analyzed these things intently for many years, and for some three years here on this site. Because of this, I highly doubt that I will be able to expound upon all of what I have considered, but would only be able to hit some of the highlights.

Same here

However, I think it is a mistake for any of us to simply assume that those opposed to us, must not have considered all that would need to be considered. I do my best to never assume this.

Agreed. Underestimating the opposition is a classic blunder in debate as well as warfare.

Since we are aware that people often misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or fabricate what they write or say, how can we determine if Bible writers are not among them?

Thanks for asking this because it is a great question, and is exactly what I am referring too. This is not a question that I have not thought of myself, or ignored, but rather is one I have considered, and analyzed intently. However, since I have thought through this so intently, there is no way I could expound it all out here in this type of format, because it would have to be in depth. So then, I can only hit the highlights.

Okay, we've both thought about the matter – and are exchanging ideas, information, impressions, conclusions, opinions.

First, the way in which we claim to know much at all about ancient history, is by reading letters written between different parties at the time. Now, as we read these letters, we do not simply assume that all that is said would have to be true, rather we compare individual letters against each other, and are able to come to a reasonable conclusion of what is true, as opposed to what would be false.

ONE way to learn about history is through reading letters. Others include:

Accounts purporting to be truthful and accurate
Disconnected sources (not just representatives of the same company)
Archaeological evidence

It would be hazardous to depend upon in-house stories (or propaganda) as a primary or sole source upon which to make a decision regarding truth and accuracy. Unverifiable stories (or those 'verified' only by other in-house stories) should not be taken to be accurate and truthful even if we favor the source.

With this type of method, we claim to be certain of those things that happen in ancient history.

I disagree. We can NOT be certain what happened in ancient history – but only what appears to have happened from the information (all forms) we have available. Certainty is seldom claimed by historians (particularly if challenged).

With this being the case, the New Testament is filled with different letters, authored by different people, addressed to different audiences. So then, as we compare these different letters to each other, we are better able to tell, what may be true, as opposed to what may not be true.

The key phrase is 'may be true'. We should be very cautious about jumping from may be true to IS true.

Now, we could certainly say that, "since all of these authors had the same agenda, then we can expect that they would be saying much the same thing", and I would agree with this if all we were talking about were certain teachings, but this is not the case. Rather, we are also talking about the accounts they give concerning certain claimed historical events, and I am not simply talking about the things surrounding the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, but also by comparing the letters of, lets say Luke, to the things that Paul wrote.

Is this to say that if four or five ancient stories more-or-less match (at least in some respects) among the many stories of the era (that often differ significantly), we should place our trust in the ones contained in the Bible?

If so, WHY?

If there is indication that the writers copied from one another and/or from a common source, does that suggest that writings were NOT independent accounts?

It is very easy to detect from these letters that Luke, surely must have been along with Paul on his missionary journeys. After these journeys, Luke sits down to write a letter to someone by the name of Theophilus, and the reason Luke gives for witting these two different letters, is so that this Theophilus "can be certain of the things that he was taught."

Now, as we compare these two letters of Luke, to those letters that Paul wrote to the different Churches, (which means the letters were written by different authors, addressed to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns) we can see they speak of the same events that occurred on these missionary journeys. In fact, in one of the last letters of Paul, that was addressed to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that, "only Luke is left with me." This demonstrates that Luke was with Paul on these journeys, and explains why Luke begins to use the word, "we" in describing the different events that occurred on these journeys, all through, and up until Paul was taken to Rome to stand trial, and placed under arrest.

Now, as we begin to think about this, we would have to conclude that these men were telling the truth about what they wrote to these different audiences, or they were both completely deceived in some sort of way, along with many others, or they were completely lying, and did a great job of colluding together. If we say they were deceived, or lying, we then must go through the process of attempting to determine how they, and many others could have become so deceived, or how they were able to hold such lies together, and the reason, and motivation for such lies, otherwise we would simply be assuming. All of this is a lot to consider, and would take much time, and effort.

Jack, you make a good case; however:

Is there disagreement among Christian scholars and theologians concerning the identity of the person who wrote 'Luke'?

Is there general agreement that 'Luke' was written after the letters attributed to Paul/Saul?

Let's put those two together . . . someone wrote stories about Jesus after Paul/Saul wrote his letters (and perhaps after he died). That person likely had access to Paul/Saul's letters, and possibly even personal contact with Paul/Saul, when writing his stories.

Is it not possible / probable / likely that the person would be influenced by Paul/Saul's writings?

Could anyone halfway clever writing decades later make his narrative fit with the Pauline letters (and even use the name 'Luke')?

This is just a small sample of the evidence that suggests that these letters were not, "misinterpreted, distorted, exaggerated or fabricated."

Since gospel writes cannot be identified with certainty, they cannot be assured to have had personal contact with or personal experience with the acts and words of Jesus. Their sources of information (decades or generations after the claimed events) are unknown so their reliability is questionable at best.

IF gospel writers were largely recording what they had been told by others (hearsay / folklore / myth / legend) the accounts they heard may well have been embellished, exaggerated, distorted and/or fabricated. We are aware that word-of-mouth stories often become hardly recognizable after several retellings.

Thus, gospel writers MAY have faithfully recorded stories – but the stories themselves may have already been corrupted. It does not add credibility that gospel writers evidently copied from each other and/or from a common source.

From here I would move on to the undisputed fact that Paul was clearly opposed to this Christian movement to begin with, so much so that he was willing to see Christians put to death in order to stop it.

What is the source of information about Paul/Saul's claimed persecution of Christians? Would that be exclusively gospel stories and epistles? Is there any extra-biblical confirmation?

Notice that there were NO Christians when Paul/Saul was supposedly persecuting them.

There were Jesus Movements within Judaism at the time but Christianity did not exist until decades later.

An interesting note: If Paul/Saul actually did persecute followers of Jesus it seems strange that he did not persecute Jesus himself since they would have been contemporaries inhabiting the same area.

Then or course, all of a sudden he makes a complete change for some reason, and then with the same energy and vigor, he becomes the biggest missionary for this movement that he was initially, violently against, and it was not something that simply lasted for a while, but rather the evidence overwhelming suggests that it lasted the rest of his life, and his letters and life prove this!

A former adversary becoming a leading proponent makes a strong statement for Christianity, doesn't it? Who tells the story?

Think about that a minute.

Then, I would go on to talk about the contradiction between Paul, and James, and how all of this flushed out, and also how, even though this would seem to call into question the truth of the Christian Faith, it actually gives more credence to it once you read the events carefully. But as you can see, this sort of thing becomes far to in depth to discuss in this type of format. At any rate I hope this at least demonstrates that these are things I have thought of myself, and have went to great lengths to investigate them.

Notice that Paul/Saul preached to an audience hundreds of miles away from Judea – to people who were not Jewish – and people who would not have know or even known of Jesus.

Ever wonder why?

The people who compiled the anthology that became known as the Bible selected stories / letters / writings that fit their preconceived notions or opinions. Can they be trusted to have chosen accurate and representative descriptions of events and conversations?

As you know, you are not conversing with the everyday Christian.

I understand and appreciate.

With this being the case, I understand the reason, and the need to compile these books together in order to have a common understanding and belief. However, I do not place much credence at all into the process that occurred. In other words, we all have sound minds hopefully, and are able to read all of these things ourselves.

In other words, I have the ability to read, and understand how the Bible was compiled together, and I also have the ability to understand the reasons they did not allow some of the books into the Bible. With this being said, I also have the ability to read those books that were left out, which means I am very familiar with the content, and have the ability to determine if there is anything contained in them that I may learn from.

I do not pretend to have read all non-included Christian writings from the early century or two. Those I have read often differ significantly from biblically included writings.

I also have the ability to understand that there were some letters that are contained in the Bible that were very hotly disputed, and I can learn the reasons why they were so disputed. I can do all of these things, (read what is contained in the Bible, along with those things that were rejected), and I do not have to believe that the process of compiling the Bible, was somehow directed, or ordained by God. Again, there is a lot to consider here, and it would take much more time, and space than we have available here.

I agree concerning disputed and not necessarily 'directed or ordained by God'.

An example of one of the things that would have to be considered, is the fact that the Apostles themselves were battling against Gnosticism themselves, and these Gnostics did in fact have writings.

Is it POSSIBLE that the Gnostics were on the right track and the mainline-Christians of the era were not?

In the end again, I hope this at least demonstrates that I have considered all of the things you have brought up. In fact, there has not been much, if anything that has been brought up to me while I have been here on this site, that I have not considered myself. However, when I consider things, I do not look for quick easy answers, rather it is a long drawn out process.

Again, understand and appreciate.

After all is said and done, you and I may come to completely different conclusions, and I have no problem with this at all. In fact, I have studied these things so intently, that I can understand unbelief, and I can understand the reasons some folks give for their unbelief.

One mark of intelligence is the ability to comprehend and consider alternative ideas.

What I cannot possibly understand, or except, is when someone tells me that I have no reason to believe! I do, or I would not!

That would be a foolish statement for anyone to make.

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to post 20 by Realworldjack]

Does it make a difference if the stories and letters are truthful, accurate, um-embellished, un-distorted accounts of events that literally happened in the real world?

Yes, it makes a tremendous difference, and I do not believe that we should simply assume that the things recorded are true, but rather go through the process of analyzing them, to determine if they hold up to scrutiny.

Jack, nearly all of what I write here (as I trust you are aware) is asking for analysis to determine if Bible stories hold up to scrutiny.

In the same way, I do not believe we should simply assume the claims could not possibly be true, because they are to difficult to believe.

Many tales I regard as untruthful are based NOT on 'too difficult to believe� but rather on their contradiction with what is known of the real world. For instance, magic flying carpets, winged flying horses, staffs turning into snakes, Sun and Moon standing still (Earth ceasing rotation), someone living in 'the belly of a fish' for days, the Earth being flooded to the tops of mountains wiping out all life that breathes, etc.

If verifiable evidence can be presented to show that magic carpets can actually fly (etc), I am VERY interested. However, I will not take someone's word or story as verifiable evidence AND I will not show favoritism toward the tales of one group over tales of other groups.

So then, we have Christians who simply assume these things are true, but in reality they do not really know what they believe, or why they believe it.

Experience here in the Forum and here in the Bible Belt (and elsewhere in the nation) leads me to believe that the vast majority of those who self-identify as Christians do not seem to know 'why they believe it'.

However, I also believe there are many unbelievers who take a simplistic approach as well, and simply assume that they must be right, whether it be because of experiences they may have had, or because it is just to extraordinary to believe.

When you address me, I trust that you understand that is not the case – and that I have given a great deal of thought to the issues we discuss. Let's not be concerned about what other believers or non-believers think or say.

My point is, I do not simply assume I must be right. I studied, and analyzed these things for over two years before finally coming to my conclusions. Even though I have done this, I still do not believe I must, or have to be correct, rather I clearly understand the possibility of my error.

Jack, I have studied and analyzed these things for fifty years – including ten years debating in this Forum. However, seniority is no guarantee of correctness (or much of anything else).

We cannot be certain how many people actually analyze what it is they claim to believe concerning these things, as opposed to those who simply assume, or react over and against what is being said in the Bible. What I do know is, when I read the Bible, I come away with a completely different understanding than most Christians, as well as unbelievers. Is this because I am not reading it correctly? Or, is it because many simply assume what it must, or has to be saying?

It appears as though nearly every person who reads the Bible comes to different understandings than others who read. Perhaps the Bible is a mirror that reflects whatever a person wants to believe or think.

Another thing I know is, many times I am misunderstood here on this site, and it is not because of what I have posted, but rather I have demonstrated time after time, that it is because people simply assume what I must be saying since I am a Christian.

Agreed. People often categorize us and assume . . . An example: I am often labeled an Atheist and addressed as such in spite of my clear statement of theistic position in signature.

Again, the point is, I have analyzed these things intently for many years, and for some three years here on this site. Because of this, I highly doubt that I will be able to expound upon all of what I have considered, but would only be able to hit some of the highlights.

Same here

However, I think it is a mistake for any of us to simply assume that those opposed to us, must not have considered all that would need to be considered. I do my best to never assume this.

Agreed. Underestimating the opposition is a classic blunder in debate as well as warfare.

Since we are aware that people often misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or fabricate what they write or say, how can we determine if Bible writers are not among them?

Thanks for asking this because it is a great question, and is exactly what I am referring too. This is not a question that I have not thought of myself, or ignored, but rather is one I have considered, and analyzed intently. However, since I have thought through this so intently, there is no way I could expound it all out here in this type of format, because it would have to be in depth. So then, I can only hit the highlights.

Okay, we've both thought about the matter – and are exchanging ideas, information, impressions, conclusions, opinions.

First, the way in which we claim to know much at all about ancient history, is by reading letters written between different parties at the time. Now, as we read these letters, we do not simply assume that all that is said would have to be true, rather we compare individual letters against each other, and are able to come to a reasonable conclusion of what is true, as opposed to what would be false.

ONE way to learn about history is through reading letters. Others include:

Accounts purporting to be truthful and accurate
Disconnected sources (not just representatives of the same company)
Archaeological evidence

It would be hazardous to depend upon in-house stories (or propaganda) as a primary or sole source upon which to make a decision regarding truth and accuracy. Unverifiable stories (or those 'verified' only by other in-house stories) should not be taken to be accurate and truthful even if we favor the source.

With this type of method, we claim to be certain of those things that happen in ancient history.

I disagree. We can NOT be certain what happened in ancient history – but only what appears to have happened from the information (all forms) we have available. Certainty is seldom claimed by historians (particularly if challenged).

With this being the case, the New Testament is filled with different letters, authored by different people, addressed to different audiences. So then, as we compare these different letters to each other, we are better able to tell, what may be true, as opposed to what may not be true.

The key phrase is 'may be true'. We should be very cautious about jumping from may be true to IS true.

Now, we could certainly say that, "since all of these authors had the same agenda, then we can expect that they would be saying much the same thing", and I would agree with this if all we were talking about were certain teachings, but this is not the case. Rather, we are also talking about the accounts they give concerning certain claimed historical events, and I am not simply talking about the things surrounding the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, but also by comparing the letters of, lets say Luke, to the things that Paul wrote.

Is this to say that if four or five ancient stories more-or-less match (at least in some respects) among the many stories of the era (that often differ significantly), we should place our trust in the ones contained in the Bible?

If so, WHY?

If there is indication that the writers copied from one another and/or from a common source, does that suggest that writings were NOT independent accounts?

It is very easy to detect from these letters that Luke, surely must have been along with Paul on his missionary journeys. After these journeys, Luke sits down to write a letter to someone by the name of Theophilus, and the reason Luke gives for witting these two different letters, is so that this Theophilus "can be certain of the things that he was taught."

Now, as we compare these two letters of Luke, to those letters that Paul wrote to the different Churches, (which means the letters were written by different authors, addressed to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns) we can see they speak of the same events that occurred on these missionary journeys. In fact, in one of the last letters of Paul, that was addressed to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that, "only Luke is left with me." This demonstrates that Luke was with Paul on these journeys, and explains why Luke begins to use the word, "we" in describing the different events that occurred on these journeys, all through, and up until Paul was taken to Rome to stand trial, and placed under arrest.

Now, as we begin to think about this, we would have to conclude that these men were telling the truth about what they wrote to these different audiences, or they were both completely deceived in some sort of way, along with many others, or they were completely lying, and did a great job of colluding together. If we say they were deceived, or lying, we then must go through the process of attempting to determine how they, and many others could have become so deceived, or how they were able to hold such lies together, and the reason, and motivation for such lies, otherwise we would simply be assuming. All of this is a lot to consider, and would take much time, and effort.

Jack, you make a good case; however:

Is there disagreement among Christian scholars and theologians concerning the identity of the person who wrote 'Luke'?

Is there general agreement that 'Luke' was written after the letters attributed to Paul/Saul?

Let's put those two together . . . someone wrote stories about Jesus after Paul/Saul wrote his letters (and perhaps after he died). That person likely had access to Paul/Saul's letters, and possibly even personal contact with Paul/Saul, when writing his stories.

Is it not possible / probable / likely that the person would be influenced by Paul/Saul's writings?

Could anyone halfway clever writing decades later make his narrative fit with the Pauline letters (and even use the name 'Luke')?

This is just a small sample of the evidence that suggests that these letters were not, "misinterpreted, distorted, exaggerated or fabricated."

Since gospel writes cannot be identified with certainty, they cannot be assured to have had personal contact with or personal experience with the acts and words of Jesus. Their sources of information (decades or generations after the claimed events) are unknown so their reliability is questionable at best.

IF gospel writers were largely recording what they had been told by others (hearsay / folklore / myth / legend) the accounts they heard may well have been embellished, exaggerated, distorted and/or fabricated. We are aware that word-of-mouth stories often become hardly recognizable after several retellings.

Thus, gospel writers MAY have faithfully recorded stories – but the stories themselves may have already been corrupted. It does not add credibility that gospel writers evidently copied from each other and/or from a common source.

From here I would move on to the undisputed fact that Paul was clearly opposed to this Christian movement to begin with, so much so that he was willing to see Christians put to death in order to stop it.

What is the source of information about Paul/Saul's claimed persecution of Christians? Would that be exclusively gospel stories and epistles? Is there any extra-biblical confirmation?

Notice that there were NO Christians when Paul/Saul was supposedly persecuting them.

There were Jesus Movements within Judaism at the time but Christianity did not exist until decades later.

An interesting note: If Paul/Saul actually did persecute followers of Jesus it seems strange that he did not persecute Jesus himself since they would have been contemporaries inhabiting the same area.

Then or course, all of a sudden he makes a complete change for some reason, and then with the same energy and vigor, he becomes the biggest missionary for this movement that he was initially, violently against, and it was not something that simply lasted for a while, but rather the evidence overwhelming suggests that it lasted the rest of his life, and his letters and life prove this!

A former adversary becoming a leading proponent makes a strong statement for Christianity, doesn't it? Who tells the story?

Think about that a minute.

Then, I would go on to talk about the contradiction between Paul, and James, and how all of this flushed out, and also how, even though this would seem to call into question the truth of the Christian Faith, it actually gives more credence to it once you read the events carefully. But as you can see, this sort of thing becomes far to in depth to discuss in this type of format. At any rate I hope this at least demonstrates that these are things I have thought of myself, and have went to great lengths to investigate them.

Notice that Paul/Saul preached to an audience hundreds of miles away from Judea – to people who were not Jewish – and people who would not have know or even known of Jesus.

Ever wonder why?

The people who compiled the anthology that became known as the Bible selected stories / letters / writings that fit their preconceived notions or opinions. Can they be trusted to have chosen accurate and representative descriptions of events and conversations?

As you know, you are not conversing with the everyday Christian.

I understand and appreciate.

With this being the case, I understand the reason, and the need to compile these books together in order to have a common understanding and belief. However, I do not place much credence at all into the process that occurred. In other words, we all have sound minds hopefully, and are able to read all of these things ourselves.

In other words, I have the ability to read, and understand how the Bible was compiled together, and I also have the ability to understand the reasons they did not allow some of the books into the Bible. With this being said, I also have the ability to read those books that were left out, which means I am very familiar with the content, and have the ability to determine if there is anything contained in them that I may learn from.

I do not pretend to have read all non-included Christian writings from the early century or two. Those I have read often differ significantly from biblically included writings.

I also have the ability to understand that there were some letters that are contained in the Bible that were very hotly disputed, and I can learn the reasons why they were so disputed. I can do all of these things, (read what is contained in the Bible, along with those things that were rejected), and I do not have to believe that the process of compiling the Bible, was somehow directed, or ordained by God. Again, there is a lot to consider here, and it would take much more time, and space than we have available here.

I agree concerning disputed and not necessarily 'directed or ordained by God'.

An example of one of the things that would have to be considered, is the fact that the Apostles themselves were battling against Gnosticism themselves, and these Gnostics did in fact have writings.

Is it POSSIBLE that the Gnostics were on the right track and the mainline-Christians of the era were not?

In the end again, I hope this at least demonstrates that I have considered all of the things you have brought up. In fact, there has not been much, if anything that has been brought up to me while I have been here on this site, that I have not considered myself. However, when I consider things, I do not look for quick easy answers, rather it is a long drawn out process.

Again, understand and appreciate.

After all is said and done, you and I may come to completely different conclusions, and I have no problem with this at all. In fact, I have studied these things so intently, that I can understand unbelief, and I can understand the reasons some folks give for their unbelief.

One mark of intelligence is the ability to comprehend and consider alternative ideas.

What I cannot possibly understand, or except, is when someone tells me that I have no reason to believe! I do, or I would not!

That would be a foolish statement for anyone to make.

You are correct to say that our exchanges become long winded. With this being the case, although I would love to respond to all you say, let us attempt to take one thing at a time. So then, if you do not mind, I will attempt to tackle what you say here to begin with,

Is there disagreement among Christian scholars and theologians concerning the identity of the person who wrote 'Luke'?

There certainly may be, but why in the world would you want to listen to those who may have a certain bias, or agenda, when you have the ability to lay any bias you have aside, to read the content in order to determine what your mind is telling you?

You see, there are letters attributed to Luke, and then there are letters attributed to Paul, and you have the ability to read these letters and determine for yourself, if you believe they coincide, or if they tend to lean toward some sort of forgery.

Now, it would certainly be wise to consider what these so called, "scholars and theologians" have to say, but to rest solely upon them would be unwise in my opinion.

Is there general agreement that 'Luke' was written after the letters attributed to Paul/Saul?

Again, I do not see what in the world, "general agreement" would have to do with it? Rather, common sense will tell you as you read the Bible that the letters attributed to Luke, could not have been written until after the letters of Paul. In other words, Paul would have been on his missionary journeys, with Luke along with him, and Paul would have written his letters while, and during these journeys. The author of Luke, could not have written his account until after all these events had taken place, unless of course the author was writing as a journal, and recording the events as they took place. However, the evidence suggests, this is not the case.

Let's put those two together . . . someone wrote stories about Jesus after Paul/Saul wrote his letters (and perhaps after he died). That person likely had access to Paul/Saul's letters, and possibly even personal contact with Paul/Saul, when writing his stories.

Is it not possible / probable / likely that the person would be influenced by Paul/Saul's writings?

Could anyone halfway clever writing decades later make his narrative fit with the Pauline letters (and even use the name 'Luke')?

Well, let us consider what you say here. Many, many times here on this site, I am asked, "what is the most reasonable, rational, logical, answer?" Surely, we should ask ourselves this question, and it is good to understand what the most "reasonable, rational, logical, answer" would be, but I do not believe it is wise to base a conclusion solely upon these things, because there are many times, the most, "reasonable, logical, rational, answer" is not the correct answer.

So then, I will ask this question here as far as the letters attributed to Luke, and Paul. What is the most, reasonable, rational, logical, answer? Is it more, "reasonable, rational, logical", to believe that all these letters were written by the same person, decades later, after the death of Luke, and Paul? To believe this, you have to be assuming a lot of things, because there is NO evidence to suggest this is the case, and in fact there is strong evidence against it.

If someone were to attempt to do such a thing, there certainly would have to be a tremendous amount of energy, and effort involved, especially in ancient times, when they did not possess the technology we have today. This person would have to intentionally sit down, and think through all these events, and write 13 letters attributed to Paul, as if he is writing to the many Churches he had planted, along with several personal letters, all the while attempting to have these letters in some kind of time frame, according to the events.

Then, this person would have to have the presence of mind, to mention the name Luke a few times, and then sit down, with the presence of mind to author, not one, but two very long and detailed letters, one concerning the life of Jesus, and the other concerning the life of the Apostles, after the death of Jesus. Not only this, but this author also addresses these two letters, to someone by the name of Theophilus, as if he is simply writing to a friend, with no concern if anyone else reads these letters at all.

These are just a few of the things that would have to be considered in order for this suggestion to be the case. So, is it more "reasonable, rational, logical" to believe the above is what occurred? Or is it more, "reasonable, logical, rational", to believe that these two men were actually involved in these journeys, and simply set down to write out these events to different audiences? One, who was simply writing to Churches he had planted, and these events were not the focus of his concern in the letters, but rather naturally came up in the conversation, while the other was focused on the events that happened to Paul, and was simply writing to a friend, with no concern for anyone else to read his letter but his friend, so that, as the author said, his friend, "could be certain of the things he was taught", and these letters become the by product of the lives of Luke, and Paul?

Okay, now we must consider if the letters of Paul, were not actually written by Paul, but was rather written by someone else, under the name of Paul?

Well, first allow me to say, there are many of these so called, "Biblical scholars" you speak of, who say, "out of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul, more than likely, Paul only authored eight of these letters." Their claim is, "in ancient times it was not uncommon for someone to write under the name of someone else, if the author was convinced that the writing truly reflected the thoughts of the name being written under, and this was a morally accepted practice."

With this being the case, these scholars argue that Paul did not author several of the letters attributed to him, and that he surely did not write 2 Timothy. Here is a quote from these scholars that give the reason that Paul could not have wrote this letter.

church structures the letters depict wouldn’t have been so developed during Paul’s lifetime.

So lets think about this. If it is true that "Church structures would not have been so developed during the LIFETIME of Paul", this would certainly have to mean that these letters were written, after the death of Paul, and much later. With this being the case, then Timothy would not have been around himself. So then, the person who would have written this letter, surely would not have been under the impression that it was perfectly fine to write under the name of Paul, addressed to someone who has long been dead, and that Paul would have been fine with what was said.

The next thing that would have to be thought about is that it would be one thing for this person to have simply wrote out some sort of teaching that they believed Paul would have agreed with, and leave it at that. But this is not what occurred. Rather this person actually went to the trouble of actually writing this letter as if it were a personal letter to this Timothy, so much so that in the end, the writer actually asks Timothy to send greetings to several different people. On top of this, the writer asks this Timothy for several personal requests, such as "Make every effort to come to me soon", and goes on to make a request for certain items to be brought with him.

With all this being the case, whoever would have wrote this letter under the guise of Paul, certainly would have had to do so, with the intention to deceive. All of these things certainly suggest that it was Paul who actually wrote this letter, along with all the other letters attributed to him. Which is the question we are about to address. Is it possible, that Paul actually authored all the letters attributed to him, and it was the "Gospel of Luke" that was forged?

So now, we have to think of someone who for some reason, sits down and intently studies the letters of Paul so much so that he can sit down to write letters, that coincide with the things that Paul said about his missionary journeys, and he eventually, in these letters begins to use the word "WE" as if he was actually along with Paul witnessing the events, when in fact he did not, but is actually writing decades later after the events.

But we would also have to consider that this is not all the author did, rather he actually wrote a full volume, that had nothing whatsoever to say about Paul, but was rather focused on the life, and ministry of Jesus.

With all of this being the case, this sort of thing would have taken a very long time to accomplish. It would have taken months to gather all of the information needed to write the first letter, and then we have to take into account, how much time actually writing the letter would take, all the while attempting to ensure what is being written coincides together.

At this point, the author must sit down and study the letters of Paul intently, which would take a considerable amount of time, and then go on to author the second letter to this so called, "Theophilus" that centers around the "Actions of the Apostles" in which the first part of the letter says nothing of Paul, and it is much later that Paul begins to be the focus, and the author as I said begins to use the word, "WE" almost naturally, without even attempting to mention the fact that he was along with him.

So then, decades later, someone sits down to do all of this, which would certainly take years to accomplish, and then must figure out a way in which to get these letters into circulation, which no one has ever seen before. How would this occur? In other words, you would think there would be those who would question, where these letters came from after all these years? Who found them?

Then we would have to think again about all the time, effort, and energy put into this forgery, and what would be the motivation for this author? How would the author even benefit? In fact, this process would take so long, that the author may never see any benefit at all, until after his own death.

Then we would have to consider, all this time and effort, and the fact that this author is not guaranteed that any of this will work at all. In fact, this undertaking could in fact backfire, and undermine the very movement he is attempting to bolster. In other words, if it was indeed found out that all the above occurred, then this could certainly spell the doom of the movement, which would make doing such a thing very risky.

You see, it is very easy to simply ask these, "what if" questions, and to put up these different scenarios that may have occurred, in order to dismiss the claims, and one MUST, and HAS to do such a thing, in order to be an unbeliever! The reason you, "MUST and HAVE" to do this is because, whether one wants to admit it or not, these letters do in fact support the claims made, and are evidence for the truth of Christianity! With this being the case, one "MUST and HAS" to deal with such things, otherwise there would be no need to even mention them.

But again, it is very easy to put forth these other so called scenarios, it is quite another to actually sit down to read all the content involved, in order to determine how likely these other scenarios would actually be. Once this is actually done, you will discover that they are not very likely at all, and the most likely, and in fact the only rational conclusion would be, that these other scenarios, are simply forced scenarios.

The fact of the matter is, there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that any of these other scenarios are in fact the case. Rather, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Paul was actually the author of the letters attributed to him, and it was Luke who authored the Gospel bearing his name, along with, "The Actions of The Apostles"!

I have only scratched the surface here, but these are at least some of the things that would absolutely have to be considered, for the possibility of what you suggest to actually be true. Also, as I have already pointed out, the unbeliever MUST, and HAS, to come up with a reason, excuse, motive, benefit, etc. for the letters of Luke, and Paul. There is no other way around it!

Next, we have only considered thus far, two different authors! Once, and if we were to resolve this issue, we would have to move on to all of the others. However, until, or unless we resolve this issue, (which we have not after many, many years) I see no need to move on to the next.

Therefore, when I am asked, "why I believe Christianity as opposed to other religions", (which by the way I do not consider Christianity to be a religion, but this is another topic) this is one of the things I point too. In other words, what religion is like Christianity? What religion is NOT based upon what someone claims to be the way to God, but is rather based upon, LETTERS, describing historical events, authored by different people, to different audiences, addressing different concerns, all the while coinciding together?

This is one of the questions an unbeliever must asked themselves, when it comes to the letters of Paul, and Luke, as far as I am concerned. If you were to take the miraculous out of the equation, would there be any reason to doubt the content of what was written? In other words, if there was no miraculous events recorded, would there be any reason to doubt the content? And, would you attempt to come up with all these unlikely scenarios, to attempt to explain it away?

If there were no miraculous events recorded in these letters, I highly doubt that anyone at all would even question the events recorded, because if you are honest with yourself there would be no other reason to doubt these letters.

The bottom line here as far as I can see is, these letters by all intent and purposes, seem to be natural by products of the lives of these two men, and the only reason to doubt them is because of the miraculous content. The unbeliever understands this, and is desperate to come up with some sort of solution to attempt to explain them away. The desperate solutions they come too, are completely unnatural, unrealistic, irrational, and even comical at times, but again they are forced to do so!

It seems to me, it would be far better for them to be honest, and admit the fact that, while they do not believe the content of the Bible, the letters of Luke, and Paul do cause somewhat of a problem for them, that is difficult to explain, instead of attempting to come up with all these, unlikely, irrational, and comical, suggestions of what might, or could have happened. In this way, I could at least give them credit for being honest.

However, more than likely most of these critics have never even read the content, and could not even tell you why the letters of Luke, and Paul cause such a problem.

So then, this is why I continue to say, "I understand unbelief, and I do not condemn anyone for their unbelief." However, I am convinced, for someone to say, "there is no reason to believe in the Christian message", or that "believing the Christian message is to simply believe tales of ancient men, with no evidence to support it" is to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge concerning the content of the Bible, or it is a desperate, and dishonest attempt to discredit the Bible.

The point is, the only way we may ever come to some sort of resolution concerning these things, is to be honest with each other, but more important, is to be honest with ones self!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by Blastcat]


Yes but I'm still not clear what you are asking when you say "Are there any exceptions?" ... is that are there any religions that do not deal with the supernatural?

yes, there are ... oddly enough.

I mentioned a few.