Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

[brunumb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #299]

Revelation
- Scholars have described the theology of Heaven's Gate as a mixture of Christian millenarianism, New Age, and ufology
- On March 26, 1997, deputies of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department discovered the bodies of the 39 active members of the group, including that of Applewhite, in a house in the San Diego suburb of Rancho Santa Fe. They had participated in a mass suicide, a coordinated series of ritual suicides, coinciding with the closest approach of Comet Hale–Bopp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27 ... ous_group)

Now why would they die for a lie?

The point is they did not think it was a lie.

The point is they did not think it was a lie.

Can we now dismiss that whole Christian argument based around why would the early followers of Jesus be willing to die for their faith?

[Difflugia]

Again Dr. Luke said that he was writing a detailed account that Luke himself investigated.

That's not what he wrote. It's close, but you seem to be overinterpreting some of Luke's description. I'll spend some effort here on what Luke actually wrote.

Luke 1:1 and 1:2 describe the sources of knowledge about Christianity prior to the new source he was creating:

• A narrative or narratives compiled by others (1:1).
• Tradition delivered to the Christians by those that were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning (1:2).

Much apologetic ink has been spilled arguing that 1:2 means that Luke had access to those eyewitnesses, but that's not implied in the verb "delivered." Acts 6:14 uses the same verb in the phrase, "the customs that Moses delivered to us."

Luke, then, endeavors to create a third source of knowledge about Christianity by writing in an orderly and methodical way to Theophilus and describes it in verse 3. Though "an account" is inferred by some translators in verse 3, he didn't actually tell us what he would have called it. Compare that with the prologues you quoted earlier. They either describe their documents explicitly as history or give the purpose as being "that the things done by man not be forgotten in time." Luke, on the other hand, describes his purpose as being so that Theophilus may "know the certainty of the words you were taught."

As for Luke's investigation, the verb Luke used literally means "to follow closely." In classical Greek literature, it often metaphorically meant "to be intimately acquainted with" in similar contexts. "To investigate" is a reasonable translation, but since it says nothing about Luke's method or how he learned the details, one needs to be careful not to read too much into it. You're reading too much into it. I'm actually reminded of internet forum discussions where having "studied" a topic can mean anything from a higher degree in a relevant subject to having read a book once. We can infer either of those extremes of Luke if we wish, but neither is what Luke himself wrote.

You or Dr. Alexander have not explained why you believe that Luke is not writing history.

Neither of us has to at this point in the discussion. Your claim so far has been that Luke is so obviously history that even a claim otherwise "is a total detachment from reality." Your argument is:

If we compare Luke's prologue to other Greek prologues the similarity can be seen clearly.

That argument fails for the reasons I've outlined. Whether Luke was writing history or not, we can't tell that from the prologue. I've shown you reasons for thinking that Luke's prologue matches a literary type other than historiography and at this point, that's my only burden. If you want to give up on that claim and change it to involve the rest of Luke's document, I'll probably have an expanded (and potentially more difficult) burden.

Why did Dr. Alexander not just say that Luke was lying.

Because that particular argument wasn't whether or not Acts was historically reliable, but that the prologue doesn't imply historiography.

Even if the claim is that it's fiction, though, fictional storytelling isn't necessarily lying. Aesop's story about the tortoise and the hare isn't describing a historical race, but neither is it lying. Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is an entertaining book that merges known historical facts with supernatural fantasy elements including government conspiracies and the walking undead. It's definitely fiction, but it isn't a lie.

More like a letter than what? What literary conventions that are diagnostic of the epistolary genre do Luke's Gospel share?

Dr. MacArthur did.

Did what?

Dr. Apollonius was describing what he researched as truth, just like Dr. Luke.

Truth and historiography aren't the same thing. If you want to argue that they are in Luke's case, you'll have to move beyond the prologue.

I imagine that this would lead us a discussion of when Luke was written. Which is really not needed unless you really want to go in that direction.

You're still trying to rescue your claim that Luke's prologue is evidence that Luke was writing history. If you think this will help your case, have at it.

Luke and Acts are both full of obvious allegory.

So are you saying that Dr. Luke was lying in his account

No.

I won't say that, either, no matter how many times you try to put those words in my mouth.

The only events that Paul mentions from the Gospel accounts are the crucifixion and resurrection and those without any other detail.

Here is a summary of what Paul says about Jesus' life.

You're overinterpreting all of these and I'm not rebutting each one as part of this argument. If you want to start a different thread, I will.

I was just grabbing ones off of Wikipedia knowing that you would agree with them because that would be a liberal source.

Whatever that means.

Ignatius was born in AD 35 and Died in AD 107 I believe he was solidly in the first century. Not that all of this really matters because the Bible was written 1st century.

If genuine, the letters of Ignatius were all written on the way to his execution sometime in the second century.

What do you think the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is? It is simply that Jesus died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins. That is what you have to believe to have your sins forgiven. It is a simple message. Why do you think that there would more than that to the message. That is the message of the gospel. Theology comes from that message.

I don't think there needs to be more to that message, but you're claiming far more than that is historical. The Gospels being allegorical expansions of that tradition would still be compatible with what Clement wrote.

The question that sceptics like yourself have to answer is why would anyone believe that Jesus died and rose again.

I once believed it because people I trusted told me it was true. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter. The statement that Matthew wrote down sayings of Jesus in Hebrew was affirmed by Papias. Irenaeus understood this as a reference to Hebraisms in Matthew’s Gospel, whereas Origen took this to mean that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. https://christianpublishinghouse.co/202 ... -and-mark/

That's accurate, but that doesn't address what I wrote. You have to establish that what Papias called Mark and Matthew refer to the same documents that we call Mark and Matthew. Irenaeus seemed to think they were, but what Papias wrote isn't very congruent with what we now have.

Evidence that Tertullian's writings were changed.

Nobody said they were. I suggested that Tertullian was relying on a late Christian "Acts" document, not that he didn't write what we have.

You made the claim "Note also that the dissertation itself is merely describing his overall method" That was not correct.

You're right. I was relying on his own summary of his dissertation.

He will sell it to you if you want to pay for it. Email him at Liberty University

I don't, but in its absence, I have no reason to believe that any of his claims stand up to scrutiny.

The disciples left there friend in a ditch really.

The disciples weren't given the body.

It is not possible for people to have group hallucinations.

It's not possible for people to come back from the dead, either, yet here we are.

Even if you use Erhman's example you still cannot get away from the FACT that Jesus rose from the Grave for the forgiveness of sins.

Even if that fact is fictional.

Happy Easter

You, too. If you're travelling, stay safe.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #299]

Revelation
- Scholars have described the theology of Heaven's Gate as a mixture of Christian millenarianism, New Age, and ufology
- On March 26, 1997, deputies of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department discovered the bodies of the 39 active members of the group, including that of Applewhite, in a house in the San Diego suburb of Rancho Santa Fe. They had participated in a mass suicide, a coordinated series of ritual suicides, coinciding with the closest approach of Comet Hale–Bopp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27 ... ous_group)

Now why would they die for a lie?

The point is they did not think it was a lie.

The point is they did not think it was a lie.

Can we now dismiss that whole Christian argument based around why would the early followers of Jesus be willing to die for their faith?

Not til folks realize how goofy an argument it is.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #312]

Thanks for wishing me safe travels. I hope everything went well with you.

Much apologetic ink has been spilled arguing that 1:2 means that Luke had access to those eyewitnesses, but that's not implied in the verb "delivered." Acts 6:14 uses the same verb in the phrase, "the customs that Moses delivered to us."

The Greek says it like this.

1:2 καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου

Speaking of the things that were accomplished from verse 1, verse 2, or a better way to say verse 2 is the following.

"Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word"



The Greek word that is translated "delivered" is παρέδοσαν or paradidōmi which is an Aorist Active Indicative Verb in the 3rd person plural form.

• Aorist tense indicates that action has already occurred

• The active voice indicates that the subject of the verb is the one that did the action. In this case, it would be the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.

• The indicative mood indicates that it is a fact. or as another writer put it "presents the action or the event as something real or certain, in other words as an objective fact."

Who is the object of this action

ἡμῖν which translated "us". This is a personal possessive pronoun with emphasis so this means that Luke was included. For example, I built the house by myself.

So in verse 2, Luke is saying that the Eyewitnesses and minsters gave to him personally and to others the same word.

The Greek does indicate by the active voice on παρέδοσαν or paradidōmi that it was the eyewitnesses and the ministers that actually "delivered" the word. And because ἡμῖν is an emphatic personal pronoun it means that Luke was one of the people that received the word from the Eyewitness (apostles) and ministers.

We also know that Luke was living at the same time as the events that he is describing were happening because of verse 1. "accomplished among us the things" is the way the Greek reads. "Us" is again ἡμῖν So the events that Luke described happened around him and he investigated these things.

So just like in your Acts 6:14 example ἡμῖν included the speaker/writer and was emphatic here in these two cases the same is true. So in Acts 6:14, the speaker was saying it was objective truth that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy wrote them down and gave them to us. The "us" would include himself the one that is speaking. So since you equated Acts 6:14 with Luke 1 then Luke would have to have had access to the eyewitnesses and the Ministers based on your equivalence.

Luke, then, endeavors to create a third source of knowledge about Christianity by writing in an orderly and methodical way to Theophilus and describes it in verse 3. Though "an account" is inferred by some translators in verse 3, he didn't actually tell us what he would have called it. Compare that with the prologues you quoted earlier. They either describe their documents explicitly as history or give the purpose as being "that the things done by man not be forgotten in time." Luke, on the other hand, describes his purpose as being so that Theophilus may "know the certainty of the words you were taught."

A better translation of the Greek of verse 3 is this:

"It seemed fitting for me as well having investigated everything carefully from the beginning to write it out for you in consecutive order most excellent Theophilus." NASB

In verse 3 Luke tells Theophilus why it is fitting for him to write an account. Because he investigated everything: The Greek word for "having investigated" or "followed after" is παρηκολουθηκότι or parakoloutheō which means:

• To follow up a thing in mind so as to attain the knowledge of it

• to understand, (cf our follow a matter up, trace its course)

• to examine thoroughly, investigate

παρηκολουθηκότι is a verb in the perfect active participle-dative singular masculine form. Since it is in the active-singular form it means that Luke actually did the investigation and that is why he should write an account. So his purpose for writing is because he has done a careful investigation of the things that had occurred among them. And Luke even gives a time frame of his research "from the beginning" From the start of all these things that happen among them.

And He "wrote it out" (γράψαι or graphō): γράψαι is again in the Aorist active infinitive form meaning that Luke is the one that wrote it out because of the active form and it is objective truth because it is in the infinitive form.

So because Luke continually used the infinitive mood he was telling Theophilus that he was writing objective truth. And because he used the active voice he was telling Theophilus that he was the one that did it.

As for Luke's investigation, the verb Luke used literally means "to follow closely." In classical Greek literature, it often metaphorically meant "to be intimately acquainted with" in similar contexts. "To investigate" is a reasonable translation, but since it says nothing about Luke's method or how he learned the details, one needs to be careful not to read too much into it. You're reading too much into it. I'm actually reminded of internet forum discussions where having "studied" a topic can mean anything from a higher degree in a relevant subject to having read a book once. We can infer either of those extremes of Luke if we wish, but neither is what Luke himself wrote.

Luke said in verse 2 how he did his investigation.

Remember "delivered" or παρέδοσαν has an active voice so it means that the eyewitnesses and ministers are the ones that did the delivering. And they had to deliver the word directly to Luke because he would have been part of "us" in verse 2 and in verse 1. Luke was among them when these events happened. So Luke investigated everything that happened among them.

That is what a straightforward reading of the Greek tells us.

That argument fails for the reasons I've outlined. Whether Luke was writing history or not, we can't tell that from the prologue. I've shown you reasons for thinking that Luke's prologue matches a literary type other than historiography and at this point, that's my only burden. If you want to give up on that claim and change it to involve the rest of Luke's document, I'll probably have an expanded (and potentially more difficult) burden.

As outlined above Luke has to be writing history because he continually wrote in the indicative mood. Because Luke wrote in the indicative mood it means that he was writing facts or history that he investigated. We know that he did the investigation because Luke used an active voice on the verb παρέδοσαν.

Examination of the Greek text does indicate that Luke was writing facts that he investigated. And because of the equivalence that you made with Acts 6:14, we can also conclude that Luke was around when all these events that he wrote about happened.

Because that particular argument wasn't whether or not Acts was historically reliable, but that the prologue doesn't imply historiography.

Even if the claim is that it's fiction, though, fictional storytelling isn't necessarily lying. Aesop's story about the tortoise and the hare isn't describing a historical race, but neither is it lying. Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is an entertaining book that merges known historical facts with supernatural fantasy elements including government conspiracies and the walking undead. It's definitely fiction, but it isn't a lie.

The Greek construction does not allow for this, because of the way that the prologue was written in the indicative mood. If Luke was writing something like you are mentioning above he would have used the subjunctive mood.

So the conclusion must be that Luke was writing fact.

[Difflugia]

The Greek says it like this.

1:2 καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου

And the Greek of Acts 6:14 looks like this:

τὰ ἔθη ἃ παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν Μωϋσῆς ("the customs that Moses delivered to us")

The only difference is between third person plural ("they delivered") and singular ("he delivered").

The Greek does indicate by the active voice on παρέδοσαν or paradidōmi that it was the eyewitnesses and the ministers that actually "delivered" the word. And because ἡμῖν is an emphatic personal pronoun it means that Luke was one of the people that received the word from the Eyewitness (apostles) and ministers.

According to that logic, the speakers in Acts 6:14 (the "false witnesses") must necessarily be asserting that they were present when Moses "delivered" the customs to them. That's clearly false.

We also know that Luke was living at the same time as the events that he is describing were happening because of verse 1. "accomplished among us the things" is the way the Greek reads. "Us" is again ἡμῖν So the events that Luke described happened around him and he investigated these things.

That's possible, but whether Luke is including himself within Christians in general or the specific Christians among whom things were accomplished is conjecture.

So just like in your Acts 6:14 example ἡμῖν included the speaker/writer and was emphatic here in these two cases the same is true. So in Acts 6:14, the speaker was saying it was objective truth that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy wrote them down and gave them to us. The "us" would include himself the one that is speaking.

That's perfectly reasonable, given who Moses was and when he lived.

So since you equated Acts 6:14 with Luke 1 then Luke would have to have had access to the eyewitnesses and the Ministers based on your equivalence.

That's a non sequitur. If Moses delivered the customs to "us" in writings long ago, then the "eyewitnesses and ministers" may have done so, too. I can't say for sure that that's necessarily the case, but neither can you that it necessarily isn't. You're mistaking speculation for evidence.

Luke, then, endeavors to create a third source of knowledge about Christianity by writing in an orderly and methodical way to Theophilus and describes it in verse 3. Though "an account" is inferred by some translators in verse 3, he didn't actually tell us what he would have called it. Compare that with the prologues you quoted earlier. They either describe their documents explicitly as history or give the purpose as being "that the things done by man not be forgotten in time." Luke, on the other hand, describes his purpose as being so that Theophilus may "know the certainty of the words you were taught."

A better translation of the Greek of verse 3 is this:

"It seemed fitting for me as well having investigated everything carefully from the beginning to write it out for you in consecutive order most excellent Theophilus." NASB

What makes that one better? The verb παρηκολουθηκότι means that Luke was claiming detailed knowledge about the subject, but doesn't imply an active investigation or any other method. An active investigation isn't an unreasonable inference, perhaps, but considering how vague the rest of the statement is, Luke may also being intentionally vague here. ἄνωθεν is again vague. It doesn't mean "from the beginning" in the way that ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς does in verse 2. It literally means "from above," but is used broadly to mean such things as "from before," "from within," and "once again." Any of those fits contextually, so asserting that Luke meant any particular one is speculative at best, particularly in the presence of so many other ambiguous phrases. ἀκριβῶς and καθεξῆς are both adverbs here, meaning "exactly" and "orderly" respectively. It's not clear which verb each modifies (παρηκολουθηκότι, "knew closely" or γράψαι, "to write"). It's unclear if his writing method was orderly or the things he wrote were in a particular order, chronological or otherwise. The phrase πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς also creates a possible adverbial phrase with the meaning "completely and without exception," but again being ambiguous in which verb it modifies.

It seems to simply be a flowery way to say that this is something Theophilus can trust. Anything else, particularly about why it's trustworthy, is just a guess. Furthermore, since Luke conspicuously neglects to claim that he's writing history, then that leaves open the conclusion that he's accurately recounting allegorical Christian tradition and its theological implications.

In verse 3 Luke tells Theophilus why it is fitting for him to write an account. Because he investigated everything: The Greek word for "having investigated" or "followed after" is παρηκολουθηκότι or parakoloutheō which means:

It literally means "to follow beside" (παρ[α], "beside" + ἀκολουθέω, "to follow"). Other uses are metaphorical. You're trying too hard to assign a very narrow reading to a word that could just as accurately mean "followed the details of the story."

παρηκολουθηκότι is a verb in the perfect active participle-dative singular masculine form.

You're reading way too much into the specific verb tenses here. They give you information, but not the information that you'd like them to.

Aorist is the past tense of narrative story telling, even in the loosest, most informal sense. From the beginning of the story, a series of aorist verbs most usually indicates a narrative sequence, the way one might tell a coworker about the harrowing commute that morning. Verbs in a different tense reach outside of the narrative. The present tense means that it's in effect now, in the context of the story teller. It sometimes refers to the beginning of the story, and often to the end ("And that's where we are now."). Sometimes it's for emphasis, to draw the listener into the story ("And he's just standing there in the road!"). Mark used that one all the time. Perfect and imperfect past tenses refer to things that began before the story being told, whether finished (perfect) or not (imperfect). In Luke 1:1-4, the author is telling the story of how and why he came to write to Theophilus. The perfect tense in verse 3 is saying that he became acquainted with the details before beginning his writing.

So because Luke continually used the infinitive mood he was telling Theophilus that he was writing objective truth.

I think you mean indicative mood. That means a declarative statement rather than a hypothetical, not whether it's fact or fiction. Even aside from that, that would mean that it's objective truth that whoever wrote the prologue also wrote the Gospel of Luke. That's not in dispute in this discussion.

And because he used the active voice he was telling Theophilus that he was the one that did it.

That's not in dispute, either.

Luke said in verse 2 how he did his investigation.

Verse 2 has nothing to do with his "investigation." The construction of vv. 1-4 is that Luke is writing his narrative to inform Theophilus "for the same reason" (ἐπειδήπερ) that others have written and "just as" (καθὼς) the eyewitnesses passed on their traditions. He's telling Theophilus (and us) why he wrote his narrative, not how he went about it.

Remember "delivered" or παρέδοσαν has an active voice so it means that the eyewitnesses and ministers are the ones that did the delivering.

As did Moses.

And they had to deliver the word directly to Luke because he would have been part of "us" in verse 2 and in verse 1.

Just like Moses.

Luke was among them when these events happened. So Luke investigated everything that happened among them.

Only if Moses was still alive in the first century. Otherwise your argument is fatally flawed.

As outlined above Luke has to be writing history because he continually wrote in the indicative mood. Because Luke wrote in the indicative mood it means that he was writing facts or history that he investigated. We know that he did the investigation because Luke used an active voice on the verb παρέδοσαν.

Every bit of that is wrong. The grammar isn't somehow different between historiography, fiction, allegory, and metaphor. The active voice on παρηκολουθηκότι does mean that he did "follow beside" the story, whatever he meant by that, but that's as opposed to passive voice ("the story was followed by Luke") or middle voice (which doesn't work with this example, but the subject both acts and is acted upon: "Luke scratched himself").

And because of the equivalence that you made with Acts 6:14, we can also conclude that Luke was around when all these events that he wrote about happened.

I'm sure it will be amusing to read your justification of this.

It's definitely fiction, but it isn't a lie.

The Greek construction does not allow for this, because of the way that the prologue was written in the indicative mood. If Luke was writing something like you are mentioning above he would have used the subjunctive mood.

Nonsense. English has indicative and subjunctive moods as well, so it's easy to see the difference.

Indicative: I am happy, so i will whistle.

Subjunctive: If I were happy, I would whistle.

Indicative: Frodo Baggins was brave, so he went to Mordor.

Subjunctive: If Frodo Baggins had been brave, he would have gone to Mordor.

You can't tell just from the grammar which of these, if any, are fact and which are fiction.

So the conclusion must be that Luke was writing fact.

The conclusion is that Moses was still alive in the first century. QED

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #315]

Ok, this whole argument is becoming absurd. You are trying to make the case that Luke was not writing history but allegory and yet:

1. You and your sources admit that Luke gives no indication in his writing that he is writing an allegory.
2. Most scholars believe that

• Jesus died by crucifixion.

• He was buried.

• His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

• The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

• The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

• The resurrection was the central message.

• They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

• The Church was born and grew.

• Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

• James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

• Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Luke in his narrative Luke described all of these things and how they happened. In his narrative, he wrote the history of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity. With the resurrection being the central message of Christianity he described how it happen. There is no theology here. Luke is simply describing events and how they happen. That is how Luke reads.

So either Luke is lying or he is telling the truth. Implied allegory does not work. In his narrative, he states that he is describing "those things which ware are most surely believed were entirely accomplished among us." I am not sure how clearly he could have stated it.

I will go through and answer your arguments even though I think this is an entirely absurd argument.

According to that logic, the speakers in Acts 6:14 (the "false witnesses") must necessarily be asserting that they were present when Moses "delivered" the customs to them. That's clearly false.

Why would this be the case? I also said that Moses gave us the first 5 books of the Bible that he wrote. In fact, the "us" in a broad sense means all Christians living today because we can pick up the Bible and read the first 5 books of the Old Testament also just like the Jews of that day. Unless you believe that all Christians are 2000 years old. There are some days when I feel that old but the last time I checked my birthdate, I think I was more than a little shy of 2000 years.

That's possible, but whether Luke is including himself within Christians in general or the specific Christians among whom things were accomplished is conjecture.

How is that conjecture? It is a Personal / Possessive Pronoun which is the object of the preposition among. Which denotes a fixed place in time or state. The time would be fixed. If you are saying Luke was referring to all Christians. That would mean Christians would have to be at that fixed time 2000 years ago. Now, this is the second time you said I was 2000 years old. I can assure you I am not 2000 years old.

That's a non sequitur. If Moses delivered the customs to "us" in writings long ago, then the "eyewitnesses and ministers" may have done so, too. I can't say for sure that that's necessarily the case, but neither can you that it necessarily isn't. You're mistaking speculation for evidence.

1. It really does not matter if that is the case, because Luke would still be getting the information from the eyewitnesses and the ministers. Just like we know the things that happen to early Isreal by what Moses gave to us.

2. Luke was there because us is the object of the preposition among. So Luke was among what was accomplished.

What makes that one better? The verb παρηκολουθηκότι means that Luke was claiming detailed knowledge about the subject, but doesn't imply an active investigation or any other method. An active investigation isn't an unreasonable inference, perhaps, but considering how vague the rest of the statement is, Luke may also be intentionally vague here.

There is no "active" investigation. Luke followed everything from above. παρηκολουθηκότι is in the "perfect tense" which means the investigation has been completed.

Berean Literal Bible
it seemed good also to me, having been acquainted with all things carefully from the first, to write with method to you, most excellent Theophilus,


ἄνωθεν is again vague. It doesn't mean "from the beginning" in the way that ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς does in verse 2. It literally means "from above," but is used broadly to mean such things as "from before," "from within," and "once again."

ἄνωθεν is not vague at all. It perfectly describes what Luke is saying throughout his Narrative. The narrative does start from above. In fact, that is where Luke's narrative starts with angels coming down from heaven to tell of Jesus' birth. Nothing vague here.


Any of those fits contextually, so asserting that Luke meant any particular one is speculative at best, particularly in the presence of so many other ambiguous phrases. ἀκριβῶς and καθεξῆς are both adverbs here, meaning "exactly" and "orderly" respectively. It's not clear which verb each modifies (παρηκολουθηκότι, "knew closely" or γράψαι, "to write"). It's unclear if his writing method was orderly or the things he wrote were in a particular order, chronological or otherwise. The phrase πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς also creates a possible adverbial phrase with the meaning "completely and without exception," but again being ambiguous in which verb it modifies.[/quote]

What? again. There is no dispute on how this should be interpreted.

Here are 50 translations of verse 3 and they all order the adverbs the exact same way. https://biblehub.com/parallel/luke/1-3.htm

Here are 5 literal translations and they all modify the same way.

Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to you in order, most noble Theophilus,

Berean Literal Bible
it seemed good also to me, having been acquainted with all things carefully from the first, to write with method to you, most excellent Theophilus,

Young's Literal Translation
it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus,

Smith's Literal Translation
It seemed fitting to me also, having comprehended all things thoroughly from above, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Literal Emphasis Translation
It seemed fitting also to me, having closely followed all things from the beginning with exactness, to write to you in successive order, most excellent Theophilus,

So do you have anyone that agrees with you? Because I have a whole lot of people that agree with me that there is no confusion about what this verse is saying.

It seems to simply be a flowery way to say that this is something Theophilus can trust. Anything else, particularly about why it's trustworthy, is just a guess. Furthermore, since Luke conspicuously neglects to claim that he's writing history, then that leaves open the conclusion that he's accurately recounting allegorical Christian tradition and its theological implications.

Exactly Luke is telling Theophilus that he can trust the history in his narrative.

It literally means "to follow beside" (παρ[α], "beside" + ἀκολουθέω, "to follow"). Other uses are metaphorical. You're trying too hard to assign a very narrow reading to a word that could just as accurately mean "followed the details of the story."

Again it really does not matter if you translate παρηκολουθηκότι or parakoloutheō as "to follow" the meaning is the same.

English Standard Version
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

The literal translations from above all translate παρηκολουθηκότι as follows so they all say the exact same thing. Because Luke had followed all things from the beginning or above. He thought it would be right for him to write.

Aorist is the past tense of narrative story telling, even in the loosest, most informal sense. From the beginning of the story, a series of aorist verbs most usually indicates a narrative sequence, the way one might tell a coworker about the harrowing commute that morning. Verbs in a different tense reach outside of the narrative. The present tense means that it's in effect now, in the context of the story teller. It sometimes refers to the beginning of the story, and often to the end ("And that's where we are now."). Sometimes it's for emphasis, to draw the listener into the story ("And he's just standing there in the road!"). Mark used that one all the time. Perfect and imperfect past tenses refer to things that began before the story being told, whether finished (perfect) or not (imperfect). In Luke 1:1-4, the author is telling the story of how and why he came to write to Theophilus. The perfect tense in verse 3 is saying that he became acquainted with the details before beginning his writing.

No, he was acquainted with all of the details that is why he was writing. His investigation was complete that is why he felt he could write.

I think you mean indicative mood.

I did thank you.

Verse 2 has nothing to do with his "investigation." The construction of vv. 1-4 is that Luke is writing his narrative to inform Theophilus "for the same reason" (ἐπειδήπερ) that others have written and "just as" (καθὼς) the eyewitnesses passed on their traditions. He's telling Theophilus (and us) why he wrote his narrative, not how he went about it.

Verses 1-4 are all one sentence in Greek and Greek builds on the previous information given. So yes verse 2 can have something to do with the investigation Luke completed.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022, 11:56 am
Remember "delivered" or παρέδοσαν has an active voice so it means that the eyewitnesses and ministers are the ones that did the delivering.
As did Moses.

Yes just like Moses

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:56 am
And they had to deliver the word directly to Luke because he would have been part of "us" in verse 2 and in verse 1.
Just like Moses.

It was just like Moses in verse 2 but not in verse 1. It is verse 1 that describes how Luke had to be around while the events that were happening among them were going on.

In Acts 6:14 and in Luke 1:2, ἡμῖν or us is used as a direct object of the verb "παρέδοσαν" or delivered. In verse 1, ἡμῖν or us is used as the object of the preposition among. The proposition, in this case, describes the state of the object ἡμῖν which is a fixed time and place. So Acts 6:14 and Luke 1:2 are the same but Luke 1 is different use and describes a specific time and place.

Every bit of that is wrong. The grammar isn't somehow different between historiography, fiction, allegory, and metaphor. The active voice on παρηκολουθηκότι does mean that he did "follow beside" the story, whatever he meant by that, but that's as opposed to passive voice ("the story was followed by Luke") or middle voice (which doesn't work with this example, but the subject both acts and is acted upon: "Luke scratched himself").

Luke was telling his readers he was writing facts about the things that happen amount them. One of the first rules of reading is to know what type of material you are reading. Knowing whether you are reading fiction or nonfiction is quite a big deal. If H.G Wells and Orson Welles were still alive they would tell you that. They caused almost mass hysteria with their radio broadcast of War with the Worlds, in 1938.

1. Allegory: Again Alexander says that Luke gives no indication that he is writing an allegory.
2. Fiction: Are you saying Luke is lying. He never gives any indication that what he is saying is not true because he writes it as if he is writing facts about an event that is happening.
3. Luke's Narrative is a little long for a metaphor

All that is left is facts about history.

At least that is the way I remember it happened 2000 years ago.

[Difflugia]

Ok, this whole argument is becoming absurd.

"Becoming?"

You are trying to make the case that Luke was not writing history but allegory

Yes. So far, your only rebuttal was that Luke's prologue preempts any other evidence. That argument failed. If you're ready to move on, I can continue presenting my case.

and yet:

1. You and your sources admit that Luke gives no indication in his writing that he is writing an allegory.

Who said that? I've said that the prologue doesn't specify allegory, but there are many indications of allegory within the body of Luke/Acts. If you're ready to give up on your prologue argument, we could move on to those.

2. Most scholars believe that

Yes. We've been through these. If you want to support these with something more than Habermas' say-so, I'll consider them again.

Luke in his narrative Luke described all of these things and how they happened. In his narrative, he wrote the history of Jesus and the beginning of Christianity.

You've repeatedly claimed that Luke was writing history, but the only support you've offered is that the prologue matches historiography more closely than any other genre. I gave you a clear counterexample.

With the resurrection being the central message of Christianity he described how it happen. There is no theology here. Luke is simply describing events and how they happen. That is how Luke reads.

That's a bizarre statement, quite frankly:

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John."

Now tell me with a straight face that that's mundane history and not theology.

So either Luke is lying or he is telling the truth.

Or he's writing allegorical fiction.

Implied allegory does not work.

Yeah. Whoever heard of things like angels, virgin births, fulfilled prophecy, miraculous healing, or the return of the dead in allegory? Absurd, right?

According to that logic, the speakers in Acts 6:14 (the "false witnesses") must necessarily be asserting that they were present when Moses "delivered" the customs to them. That's clearly false.

Why would this be the case? I also said that Moses gave us the first 5 books of the Bible that he wrote. In fact, the "us" in a broad sense means all Christians living today because we can pick up the Bible and read the first 5 books of the Old Testament also just like the Jews of that day. Unless you believe that all Christians are 2000 years old. There are some days when I feel that old but the last time I checked my birthdate, I think I was more than a little shy of 2000 years.

You're arguing the wrong direction. Of course all Christians weren't present when Mosed delivered the customs. You're arguing, though, that Luke was necessarily present when the eyewitnesses delivered their traditions, despite the wording being exactly the same as for Moses.

1. It really does not matter if that is the case, because Luke would still be getting the information from the eyewitnesses and the ministers. Just like we know the things that happen to early Isreal by what Moses gave to us.

I agree with this. We can be just as as confident in Luke's history as we can in the Pentateuch's history, perhaps even more so.

2. Luke was there because us is the object of the preposition among. So Luke was among what was accomplished.

No, Luke was among those that received the traditions, whether they received them directly from the eyewitnesses or the traditions were passed down by others, as the customs of Moses were.

There is no "active" investigation. Luke followed everything from above. παρηκολουθηκότι is in the "perfect tense" which means the investigation has been completed.

Exactly. I assume you're still trying to smuggle in some active sense of "investigation," but your statement is accurate exactly as you've written it.

ἄνωθεν is not vague at all. It perfectly describes what Luke is saying throughout his Narrative. The narrative does start from above.

Unless Luke is on a ladder, that's metaphorical and could mean several different things. That's what vague means.

In fact, that is where Luke's narrative starts with angels coming down from heaven to tell of Jesus' birth. Nothing vague here.

Nothing theological, either, apparently.

What? again. There is no dispute on how this should be interpreted.

But how it's interpreted isn't dictated by the grammar, which is what you were asserting, even if all modern Christians agree.

Exactly Luke is telling Theophilus that he can trust the history in his narrative.

Luke said that Theophilus could trust the narrative. You're the one that said that it's history.

It literally means "to follow beside" (παρ[α], "beside" + ἀκολουθέω, "to follow"). Other uses are metaphorical. You're trying too hard to assign a very narrow reading to a word that could just as accurately mean "followed the details of the story."

Again it really does not matter if you translate παρηκολουθηκότι or parakoloutheō as "to follow" the meaning is the same.

I agree.

Verses 1-4 are all one sentence in Greek and Greek builds on the previous information given. So yes verse 2 can have something to do with the investigation Luke completed.

It could, but it doesn't. Each verse is a separate clause that together form a description of why the author wrote the Gospel.

It was just like Moses in verse 2 but not in verse 1. It is verse 1 that describes how Luke had to be around while the events that were happening among them were going on.

I understand that you desperately want to have this point, but they're worded exactly the same way. If verse 1 necessarily means that Luke was with the eyewitnesses, then Acts 6:14 necessarily means that the false witnesses were with Moses. If Acts 6:14 doesn't necessarily mean that, then neither does verse 1. You can't have it both ways.

In Acts 6:14 and in Luke 1:2, ἡμῖν or us is used as a direct object of the verb "παρέδοσαν" or delivered. In verse 1, ἡμῖν or us is used as the object of the preposition among. The proposition, in this case, describes the state of the object ἡμῖν which is a fixed time and place. So Acts 6:14 and Luke 1:2 are the same but Luke 1 is different use and describes a specific time and place.

Do you have a reference or grammar or something that supports this?

They caused almost mass hysteria with their radio broadcast of War with the Worlds, in 1938.

And Luke has caused a bit of mass hysteria for exactly the same reason.

1. Allegory: Again Alexander says that Luke gives no indication that he is writing an allegory.

In the prologue. If you need to know more, he says, you have to go beyond the prologue.

2. Fiction: Are you saying Luke is lying.

No, I'm saying that he wrote fiction.

He never gives any indication that what he is saying is not true because he writes it as if he is writing facts about an event that is happening.

Other than all the theological and supernatural stuff.

3. Luke's Narrative is a little long for a metaphor

Touché! I am defeated!

3.All that is left is facts about history.

After we take away the fictional parts, you're right. But that's the sixty-four-dollar question, isn't it?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

Yes. So far, your only rebuttal was that Luke's prologue preempts any other evidence. That argument failed. If you're ready to move on, I can continue presenting my case.

No, my rebuttal is that Luke is writing what he believed happened or he was lying in the form of fiction. To be an allegory someone would have to explain how the action described relates to real events.

The problem with saying that Luke is writing allegory is the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is the central message of Christianity. Belief in the resurrection for the forgiveness of sins is the narrow gate into Christianity and has always been the narrow gate into Christianity. NOWHERE in all of Scripture has the resurrection been treated as an allegory.

You've repeatedly claimed that Luke was writing history, but the only support you've offered is that the prologue matches historiography more closely than any other genre. I gave you a clear counterexample.

No, my claim is that Luke is either lying or he is writing history. A person cannot interpret it as an allegory unless the allegory is interpreted. Otherwise, it is simply fiction and in this case, it would be lying.

There was a real historical Jesus that is without question. So what you, or whoever you received your argument from, are asking people to believe is that Luke was writing an allegory about a person that actually existed. So Luke wrote this allegory about a real person and let people believe that this real person rose from the dead and that they should worship Him.

45 Then he (Jesus we know from verse 36) opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses (this is why Luke references eyewitnesses in the preface) of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

That's a bizarre statement, quite frankly:

Yea I was hoping to move on from the preface.

But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John."

Now tell me with a straight face that that's mundane history and not theology.

Yes, it is history.

I am assuming from the way you are arguing that you do not believe in God or angels. The only difference then between you and me is our belief in what exists outside of our universe. You believe that some sort of physical eternal universe exists outside of our universe. I believe that there is an eternal God and angels exist outside of our universe.

Or he's writing allegorical fiction.

No that would be lying because he does not explain the allegory and he told Theophilus.

• That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Yeah. Whoever heard of things like angels, virgin births, fulfilled prophecy, miraculous healing, or the return of the dead in allegory? Absurd, right?

Luke, Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and Christians from that time until today. They all believe that an eternal God exists outside of this universe.

You're arguing the wrong direction. Of course all Christians weren't present when Mosed delivered the customs. You're arguing, though, that Luke was necessarily present when the eyewitnesses delivered their traditions, despite the wording being exactly the same as for Moses.

Again ἡμῖν is only used in verse 2 it is also in verse 1. It is verse 1 that tells us that Luke was among the THINGS (that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact) that were accomplished. The idea was to put "these things" in order (to put together in order, arrange, compose). So Luke was around when "the things" were accomplished.

No, Luke was among those that received the traditions, whether they received them directly from the eyewitnesses or the traditions were passed down by others, as the customs of Moses were.

Where do traditions come from? The verse states that it was "the things" that Luke was among.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:59 am
In fact, that is where Luke's narrative starts with angels coming down from heaven to tell of Jesus' birth. Nothing vague here.
Nothing theological, either, apparently.

Nope

I understand that you desperately want to have this point, but they're worded exactly the same way. If verse 1 necessarily means that Luke was with the eyewitnesses, then Acts 6:14 necessarily means that the false witnesses were with Moses. If Acts 6:14 doesn't necessarily mean that, then neither does verse 1. You can't have it both ways.

Acts 6:14 is different than Luke 1. The only world that is the same is ἡμῖν.

And Luke has caused a bit of mass hysteria for exactly the same reason.

Are you saying Luke was lying?

No, I'm saying that he wrote fiction.

So Jesus wasn't real? Is that what you are saying.
Nobody in the Bible treats it as fiction. All of the writers in the New Testament treat what Luke writes as real. Three other writers wrote the same fictional story then. This would not be a work of fiction but a lie.

What is this theology then? What is the point Luke is trying to get across then?

[Difflugia]

No, my rebuttal is that Luke is writing what he believed happened or he was lying in the form of fiction.

Perhaps we're simply using different definitions of "lying." When A. A. Milne wrote Winnie the Pooh, would you say that was he lying?

To be an allegory someone would have to explain how the action described relates to real events.

Steinbeck's turtle in The Grapes of Wrath is allegory, yet it's never explained as such in the book.

The problem with saying that Luke is writing allegory is the resurrection of Jesus.

The problem with saying that Plato wrote allegory is the cave.

NOWHERE in all of Scripture has the resurrection been treated as an allegory.

And NOWHERE in Orwell's Animal Farm have pigs been treated as allegory.

There was a real historical Jesus that is without question. So what you, or whoever you received your argument from, are asking people to believe is that Luke was writing an allegory about a person that actually existed.

There was a real historical Saint Nicholas that is without question. That would make Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer an allegory about a person that actually existed.

So Luke wrote this allegory about a real person and let people believe that this real person rose from the dead and that they should worship Him.

Luke wrote allegory about a (perhaps) real person. How later Christians came to understand what he wrote was sort of out of his hands.

Yea I was hoping to move on from the preface.

At your convenience.

Now tell me with a straight face that that's mundane history and not theology.

Yes, it is history.

I am assuming from the way you are arguing that you do not believe in God or angels. The only difference then between you and me is our belief in what exists outside of our universe.

I suspect that that's not the important difference. Ebenezer Scrooge was visited by angels in a Christmas Carol. Do you think that's fiction or nonfiction? Why? I'll guess up front that your answers would be much the same as mine despite the differences in our beliefs about the supernatural. I suspect that what's different is our attitudes about the Bible specifically, not about stories of gods and angels in general.

Luke, Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and Christians from that time until today. They all believe that an eternal God exists outside of this universe.

And He is so ineffable that at least three of those thought that the best way to explain His ways was through theological fiction. Unfortunately, we don't actually have any of Peter's writing, so we can't know how he felt about the Gospels.

Nobody in the Bible treats it as fiction. All of the writers in the New Testament treat what Luke writes as real. Three other writers wrote the same fictional story then.

No, they wrote different fictional stories about many of the same characters. Mark's Jesus was adopted by God at the baptism rather than being born divine. John's Jesus was neither a descendant of David nor born in Bethlehem. They're different stories.

What is this theology then? What is the point Luke is trying to get across then?

The Kingdom of God is open to all, to the Jewish and non-Jewish alike. The way to achieve salvation in the afterlife is through obedience and prayer in this life. Though the Church was divided in the past into a Palestinian faction and a Greek/Hellenist faction, represented by the characters Peter and Paul, respectively. The separate factions have managed to unite through compromise just as the two characters did in Acts.

[brunumb]

The resurrection is the central message of Christianity. Belief in the resurrection for the forgiveness of sins is the narrow gate into Christianity and has always been the narrow gate into Christianity.

If it is that significant and that important one would think that an all-knowing all-powerful creator of everything should have come up with a far better scenario to get the message across. A few disparate, conflicting stories cobbled together in a clumsy fashion is all that we have to tell the central message of Christianity. Really? It's almost as if we are not really supposed to know what happened. Why not have the resurrection event occur in the presence of multitudes leaving little doubt possible? There is so much more that the omnipotent one could have done to ensure that everyone knew that the resurrection was real right from the very get go. What we have instead is people trying to shore up their beliefs by contriving all sorts of means to try and get the story to hold together. It just doesn't, at least not without applying the magical potion known as faith that lets one believe in anything.