Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Switch to Forum Live View New Archaeological Discovery Questions Jesus' Bodily Resurrection
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2014 - 2:05PM #71
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

Jun 13, 2014 -- 8:24AM, John1one wrote:


I doubt you will find any record in ancient history adhering to the rules of modern history. Julius Caesar employed a stenographer / secretary to write his memoirs, if memory serves. The fact that he sometimes does things in the 3rd person doesn’t seem to make it **not** his autobiographical account of his exploits. Even today we might say of a person: “he saw that car crash into that truck and not the other way around; and this is his eyewitness testimony!” Notice, none of the above is in the 1st person, but it claims to be the eyewitness truth. You are trying to impose modern formal custom to 1st century traditions.



I think you are the one hoping to make people think that the Gospel of Luke conforms to "modern formal customs"  because you have the erroneous notion that "eyewitness testimony" is the strongest form of historical evidence.


Many, and I can only presume that you are one of them, claim Jesus (so named in all the Gospel accounts and all the epistles) never existed.



Addressing a comment like that to a person known to be a Christian gives the strong impression that you intend nothing by it but to be offensive.


Asserting that Luke was not an eyewitness to the life and times of Jesus is not the same thing as asserting that no one ever saw Jesus.  I feel sorry for you that you think you have to attempt to make the Gospel of Luke into something it is not in order to support your faith.



This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2014 - 4:02PM #72
John1one
Posts: 1,601

Jun 15, 2014 -- 2:05PM, amcolph wrote:

John1one: I doubt you will find any record in ancient history adhering to the rules of modern history. Julius Caesar employed a stenographer / secretary to write his memoirs, if memory serves. The fact that he sometimes does things in the 3rd person doesn’t seem to make it **not** his autobiographical account of his exploits. Even today we might say of a person: “he saw that car crash into that truck and not the other way around; and this is his eyewitness testimony!” Notice, none of the above is in the 1st person, but it claims to be the eyewitness truth. You are trying to impose modern formal custom to 1st century traditions.



I think you are the one hoping to make people think that the Gospel of Luke conforms to "modern formal customs" because you have the erroneous notion that "eyewitness testimony" is the strongest form of historical evidence.



Really? I thought I was explaining why modern historical rules should not be used to reject ancient history. Otherwise and if strictly adhered, we would end up rejecting all ancient history. I believe I would count myself among those who believe Luke does not fit into modern rules of good history. Rather, it seems to fit well as ancient Greco-Roman (historical) biography.


Concerning ‘eyewitness testimony’, was there another kind in ancient history? I understand that today we also rely on archeology, but this wasn’t so in the 1st century, as far as I am aware. I believe today we can even use DNA to put pieces of manuscript together etc. Nevertheless, what we have in the Gospel narratives (historical biographies) is the best that was available at the time. Would you deny this?


 


Jun 15, 2014 -- 2:05PM, amcolph wrote:

John1one: Many, and I can only presume that you are one of them, claim Jesus (so named in all the Gospel accounts and all the epistles) never existed.



Addressing a comment like that to a person known to be a Christian gives the strong impression that you intend nothing by it but to be offensive.



I don’t know you that well. Before this, I believe we had one other discussion. I try not to judge another person’s claim to being Christian, and I have discussed with many falling into all categories of the spectrum of what is called Christian—from Gnosticism to Orthodoxy. I can’t say that I’ve ever debated with anyone who doubted the physical existence of Jesus, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were such people claiming to be Christian. But, I’m glad we got this straight right from the beginning. If you are offended with my approach, I apologize. I’ll try not to be so offensive as we continue.


 


Jun 15, 2014 -- 2:05PM, amcolph wrote:

Asserting that Luke was not an eyewitness to the life and times of Jesus is not the same thing as asserting that no one ever saw Jesus. I feel sorry for you that you think you have to attempt to make the Gospel of Luke into something it is not in order to support your faith.



No need to feel sorry for me, but, if it makes you feel better, be my guest. I have my own opinion about the Gospel of Luke as to when it was written, but I do go along with its preface that the author actually spoke with people who knew Jesus in order to record what he does. Nevertheless, I don’t believe this is intended to mean that the author of Luke never met Jesus.


Concerning making the Gospel of Luke into something it is not, I believe that is something that remains to be seen. You have your opinion, and I have mine. It may be fun finding out whose seems to fit best.


As far as what supports my faith is concerned, whether or not I am correct about the date of Luke’s Gospel has no bearing upon my faith. If it can be shown by someone (not meaning you, of course) that what Luke claims about Jesus isn’t true, well, that would be another matter, but I don’t foresee that ever happening.


QUESTION AUTHORITY
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 15, 2014 - 5:43PM #73
amcolph
Posts: 20,246

Well, then.


My point was only that there is no evidence (internal or external) that Luke was an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life, thus his narrative was not an eyewitness account. 


I took you to dispute this, but I still stand by it.  Whether those accounts on which he drew in composing his narrative were eyewitness accounts is a separate question.


But I think that calling the Gospels of Luke an "eyewitness account" when it is ostensibly composed and adapted from several eyewitness accounts is doing violence to the term.


Quite frankly, I don't put much stock in any of the four being "eyewitness accounts" in the strict sense that I am indicating and I am just a little bit leery of people who strive officiously to convince me of it.  I wonder what they find so urgent about it.


This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 16, 2014 - 7:23AM #74
John1one
Posts: 1,601

Jun 15, 2014 -- 5:43PM, amcolph wrote:

Well, then.


My point was only that there is no evidence (internal or external) that Luke was an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life, thus his narrative was not an eyewitness account.



Well, personally, I believe Luke was an eyewitness, and this is a departure from what I previously wrote, both to you and to others. I had believed he received his testimony solely from other eyewitnesses, and he undoubtedly did receive some things—such as the birth accounts of Jesus and the Baptist and at least much of the account of the Twelve we find in Mark; but rereading the first verses leads me to believe that the words in verse-3 pertain to him rather than his getting his information from the sources.


In verse-1 he tells us that many sought to arrange into a declaration those things which they were persuaded of – (verse-2) by the (apostles) eyewitnesses who preached the word.


In verse-3 the author goes on to say that he, also, wrote his work in order, i.e. chronologically, because from the beginning he has had a perfect understanding (of how things occurred). And, he gave his written testimony to a high official named Theophilus. This implies his own witness coupled with the witness of the Twelve.


 


 


Jun 15, 2014 -- 5:43PM, amcolph wrote:

I took you to dispute this, but I still stand by it. Whether those accounts on which he drew in composing his narrative were eyewitness accounts is a separate question.



Well, at least as of this post, I do dispute what you say above. As I said in my previous paragraph, when I went over the first few verses I discovered I am apt to disagree with what I’ve been told. Therefore, for better or worse, I have to believe what I see. As for those accounts (and people) from which the author draws upon to complete his record, we can discuss these, as well, as it pleases you.


 


 


Jun 15, 2014 -- 5:43PM, amcolph wrote:

But I think that calling the Gospels of Luke an "eyewitness account" when it is ostensibly composed and adapted from several eyewitness accounts is doing violence to the term.



I don’t believe it is doing violence, especially since your understanding is relatively recent. For over fifteen hundred years folks who spoke of the Gospels understood Luke at least saying he derived his record from eyewitnesses. I don’t believe our modern terminology—‘doing violence to the term’—is accurate except if we wish to evaluate more recent works. We need to judge the ancient works by the rules under which they were written.


 


 


Jun 15, 2014 -- 5:43PM, amcolph wrote:

Quite frankly, I don't put much stock in any of the four being "eyewitness accounts" in the strict sense that I am indicating and I am just a little bit leery of people who strive officiously to convince me of it. I wonder what they find so urgent about it.



You may believe whatever you please about the text, and I don’t seek to judge anyone for their personal stand. However, if you wish to engage in debate / discussion to see how things fall, then you must know that I disagree with you (not to judge you). It wouldn’t be a discussion / debate otherwise. Would it? I feel no urgency to convince you of anything, but that does not mean I won’t disagree with your claims against the Gospels being eyewitness records (Greco-Roman biography genre) concerning Jesus.

QUESTION AUTHORITY
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 11, 2015 - 1:35PM #75
D50Outfit
Posts: 45

Jun 12, 2014 -- 8:24AM, amcolph wrote:

There seems to be some confusion as to what an eyewitness is.   By his own words, Luke is not an eyewitness and his Gospel is not an eyewitness account.  He tells us up front he is writing from the testimony of others, rather than things he has personally seen.  In order to be an eyewitness account, it must be the account of the individual who has personally witnessed the events he describes.


Heaven has a low threshold for proof: much lower than what's used here on earth to send criminals to the gallows.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook