Moderator: Moderators
One of the problems with that is, the "earliest" found, is not necessary the oldest, in addition to that the dating methods are not reliable.
I don't believe we have the earliest manuscripts.
I don't believe they copied Mark.
Firstly, I don't believe they changed it. And secondly I don't think it really makes any meaningful difference. It could be that Jesus was angry in that situation. But, because he healed the person, it shows he was compassionate and cared about the person. If he would have been angry at the person, he would probably not have done it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Can you support this claim?
I though that was clear, but I meant the earliest manuscripts that we have. We don't have any manuscripts at all from before the second century, so we knew that.
What do you think the relationship is between the synoptics? Can you support whatever that is?
I look forward to seeing more support than your assertion.
If it doesn't make any meaningful difference, why might someone have changed the wording?1213 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 9:10 amAnd secondly I don't think it really makes any meaningful difference. It could be that Jesus was angry in that situation. But, because he healed the person, it shows he was compassionate and cared about the person. If he would have been angry at the person, he would probably not have done it.
That I think it is wrong to call something the oldest or original version, when it is only possibly the earliest version we have at the moment.
I don't trust them, because the calibration of them can be biased.
That does not mean there was none.
I believe Mark, Luke and Matthew can have had same sources, but there is no good evidence that they copied other Gospels.
At this moment it looks the change is later and it was originally not the angry version. And if it is so, the reason may have been to cause this problem that atheists have with it.
That's an odd line in the sand, but OK.
This isn't creationism. You don't have to pretend that the manuscripts are only a month old.
Nobody thinks there weren't any.
I don't know how fine you're trying to split hairs, but there's absolutely damning evidence of literary dependence. Whenever we have these discussions, I reproduce the "brood of vipers" monologue from Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9, in ESV English and Greek. Where there is a difference between the texts, Matthew is in red and Luke is in blue:
You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit/fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not presume/begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. And even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Since that's supposed to be a speech in Aramaic that's been translated into Greek, it beggars belief that both authors remembered the speech and then translated it exactly the same way.γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον/καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας καὶ μὴ δόξητε/ἄρξησθε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν Ἀβραάμ. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάμ. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.
A conspiracy theory? I guess that's about par for the course.
No good reason to believe he altered anything. He only told different part of the whole story.AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:36 am ....
Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction. At the exact same part in the story, Luke has the (now 2) angels say this:
Luke 24:6-8
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.
Luke changes the prediction of an appearance in Galilee to a remembrance of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee
Mark 9:1 came true after six days:AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:36 am...
Mk. 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
Lk. 9:27 "But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
I think it is evil to make claims that Luke rewrites something, without any real evidence.AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:36 am...Luke rewrites Mark 14:62 in Lk. 22.69. Mark says "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" to the High Priest while Luke alters this to "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God."
...
No he does what I say he did and I just proved it by quoting the passages he altered, omitted and by telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem the same night as the Resurrection. Whoever "Luke" was, he simply can't be trusted due to his pervasive redaction. Luke is not telling "different parts of the same story." He tells a totally different story or version of events altogether. If Luke was telling the "whole story" then he would have included a reference to the Galilean appearance. You'll notice he doesn't do that anywhere (because it's been erased).1213 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 2:14 am
No good reason to believe he altered anything. He only told different part of the whole story.
Mark 9:1 came true after six days:
And after six days doth Jesus take Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up to a high mount by themselves, alone, and he was transfigured before them, and his garments became glittering, white exceedingly, as snow, so as a fuller upon the earth is not able to whiten them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
Mark 9:2-4
Luke also tells similar story.
You were literally given several passages that Luke rewrote from the source he was copying from. Since when is empirical proof not "real evidence"? Only in denialist apologetics I suppose.I think it is evil to make claims that Luke rewrites something, without any real evidence.
You are making lot of baseless claims. No good reason to believe the claims about erasing or altering, when it is easily possible that he just wrote only the parts he knew, which can be true at the same time with the other texts.AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:09 am No he does what I say he did and I just proved it by quoting the passages he altered...
Let's reconvene after you watch the video, which was dug up in your honor:Realworldjack wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:32 pm Okay, well I have no problem with the conclusions you come to as far as Luke is concerned. However, here are just a few things you cannot deny. There is no doubt we have evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul. One piece of that evidence would be the fact the author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the travels of Paul as if he is there to witness the events. In order to know this, I simply have to read the text. On the other hand, in order to believe the author was not a traveling companion of Paul, I would have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to come to such a conclusion. In fact, most everyone would come to this conclusion, because not very many people at all would have come up with the idea that the author may have been using a literary device. But for some strange reason even those who would have never come up with such an idea, now are convinced this is the best explanation of the use of the words "we" and "us" by the author. At any rate, it really does not matter, because even though it may be a possibility a literary device may have been used, it has not in the least been demonstrated, which leaves us with the evidence the author traveled with Paul.
The next piece of evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul is the fact the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus, ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, and we know that there was more to the life of Paul after this. Now, why do you suppose the author would have ended this letter with Paul being under arrest, when we know there was more to the life of Paul? Could it possibly be the fact that the author is there with Paul at the time, and there is no more to report? In other words, Theophilus is now up to date, since at that time there would be no more for the author to report to Theophilus. Let us go on to think about the fact that if the author was there with Paul for the 2 years of this arrest, this would have given the author ample time to sit down in order to write out, not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to Theophilus.
Now, let us go on to think about the fact that in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which is addressed to Timothy, keeping in mind that this letter is clearly authored while the author is under arrest, and the author just so happens to mention in passing, "only Luke is left with me". I'm just telling you the evidence is mounting up that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul, and that the author was Luke. But the thing is, we are not even finished yet, because the most damning evidence is about to come.
The author of the second letter addressed to Theophilus, begins this letter by describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, for some strange reason, when Paul arrives on the scene, and begins his journeys, we only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and we hear nothing whatsoever of the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless, Paul comes in contact with them. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can. If the author was traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, if he was not there, and it just so happens this is exactly what we have. But believe it or not, we are not done yet.
The author of the letters addressed to Theophilus begins the first letter by assuring Theophilus that he had, "investigated everything from the beginning" as if he were alive to do such an investigation. But the thing is, the author does not simply say that he had "investigated everything from the beginning" as if he was alive to do such an investigation, he also goes on to say, "the things which have been accomplished among us" as if Theophilus would have been alive at the time of the events recorded.
One more thing I would like to bring up here as far as the author who addressed Theophilus is concerned. The author not only addresses Theophilus, but he also addresses this Theophilus as, "Most Excellent". The point I am making is; most anyone who would read these letters would consider the audience to be an individual. However, for some strange reason, there are those who want us to believe the author could not have possibly wrote out these two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual, and therefore the author must have used the meaning of the name Theophilus in order to address a wider audience. Again, most folks would have never come to such a conclusion on their own, but for some strange reason this becomes the best explanation for those who could have never thought of this on their own. The point is, for one to believe the author was addressing one individual, such a one would not have to do any sort of mental gymnastics. On the other hand, to convince oneself the author was targeting a wider audience, one would have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics.
To end here, I want to be clear in that I have no problem with the conclusions you come to as far as the contents of Luke, and Acts. The problem will come in when one wants to insist there would be no evidence in support of the author being a traveling companion of Paul, which would go on to be evidence the author was alive at the time of the events he records, along with evidence the author would have not only known Paul very well, but would have also known the original apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. It would also have to be acknowledged that for one to believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul, which would also mean the author would have known the original apostles, one would not have to do any sort of mental gymnastics in order to believe such a thing, while those opposed would certainly have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to come to the conclusion the author was not alive at the time of the events he records.
All readers here see is that you continue to merely hand-wave away everything which presents as damning to your position. The storylines between Mark and Luke are incompatible. It is very clear in his given responses, as well as pointed out in the video, which you likely never watched. Anywho, it is clear that (belief preservation) is key here, on your part, You do you, I guess.1213 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 2:13 amYou are making lot of baseless claims. No good reason to believe the claims about erasing or altering, when it is easily possible that he just wrote only the parts he knew, which can be true at the same time with the other texts.AchillesHeel wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2024 10:09 am No he does what I say he did and I just proved it by quoting the passages he altered...
It is ridiculous that nowadays, when atheists have failed in proving Bible wrong, they are making up own imaginary stories to make Bible look wrong. It is funny, at the same time they think we can't believe the Bible, but we should believe their claims about matters that they were not even witnessing about 2000 years ago.
