What did Luke originally write?

[historia]

How do you know the copy of Luke, for which you and I read, are remotely close to the original? Maybe the originals had no miracles in them at all? Or maybe they did and the original author's intent was completely different? Again, not asking you to prove a negative. I don't really have to. Why? We have absolutely NO idea what the original even says, as a starting point.

Question for debate:

Is the Gospel of Luke that we now possess remotely close to the original? How might we know?

[neverknewyou]

Yes, but I don't think that doubters and skeptics do themselves any favors by ignoring the evidence. The fact is that the Bible (New and Old T) cover a lot of historical or arguably historical, material. Skeptics will dig a rabbit -hole for themselves if they claim that Christianity has no more historical validity than Zoroastrianism or Shinto, for example. We have to accept and deal with the historical aspects rather as questionable history than totally man -made myth, or we will simply provide the Christian apologists with ammunition.

The Bible does not cover a lot of historical material, it contains unverified stories, what we call fiction. You can find copies of The Bible in the mythology section of your local library, and there is a valid reason for it being found in the mythology section. No one is ignoring so called 'evidence', you just can't seem to make the distinction between fiction and nonfiction. Dying and rising gods do not exist in reality. A certain Paul believed so but we know from his epistles that he was a religious fanatic. Paul's message is that we are to believe him, congratulations for your part.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, but I don't think that doubters and skeptics do themselves any favors by ignoring the evidence. The fact is that the Bible (New and Old T) cover a lot of historical or arguably historical, material. Skeptics will dig a rabbit -hole for themselves if they claim that Christianity has no more historical validity than Zoroastrianism or Shinto, for example. We have to accept and deal with the historical aspects rather as questionable history than totally man -made myth, or we will simply provide the Christian apologists with ammunition.

The Bible does not cover a lot of historical material, it contains unverified stories, what we call fiction. You can find copies of The Bible in the mythology section of your local library, and there is a valid reason for it being found in the mythology section. No one is ignoring so called 'evidence', you just can't seem to make the distinction between fiction and nonfiction. Dying and rising gods do not exist in reality. A certain Paul believed so but we know from his epistles that he was a religious fanatic. Paul's message is that we are to believe him, congratulations for your part.

History itself covers a lot of Unverified not to say dubious stories. Yet we won't dismiss them as myth as we try to extract a bit of historical truth from it. Skeptics and critics put themselves in a false position if they treat religious books differently - just because they are within a current rather than obsolete religion.

I don't mind them putting all holy books in the mythology section.Nevertheless, a number of religions have required attention to history including Islam, Buddhism and even Hinduism, let alone LDS and The Bible especially requires more historical attention than either claiming it as true or all as false, and had we not done so, we would not be able to refute a lot of it, like Bethlehem, which was the subject of a lot of vigorous apologetics for the '2nd census', which Varus' 2nd term finally did for.

[neverknewyou]

History itself covers a lot of Unverified not to say dubious stories.


Yet we won't dismiss them as myth as we try to extract a bit of historical truth from it. Skeptics and critics put themselves in a false position if they treat religious books differently - just because they are within a current rather than obsolete religion.

That is false. Unverified events are not part of history. Historians must scrutinize and quantify the reliability of any given source of material. We can't say that history is sloppy and therefore we can be sloppy as regards to religious texts. No, it doesn't work that way. The truth is that religious texts have repeatedly been regarded as being of historical merit when nothing could be further from the truth. They consist of obvious storied fantasy and the entire point of religion is that we simply believe for the sake of believing.

I don't mind them putting all holy books in the mythology section.Nevertheless, a number of religions have required attention to history including Islam, Buddhism and even Hinduism, let alone LDS and The Bible especially requires more historical attention than either claiming it as true or all as false, and had we not done so, we would not be able to refute a lot of it, like Bethlehem, which was the subject of a lot of vigorous apologetics for the '2nd census', which Varus' 2nd term finally did for.