Luke was written 50 to 60 years after Jesus’ death by people who never knew him.
Flavius Josephus lived immediately after Jesus’ death and doesn’t mention anything in his autobiography about someone having been brought back to life, which would seem an incredible thing to not mention were it widely believed at the time.
False. Luke was friends with Paul and of course you are leaving out the Holy Spirit and the power it holds.
In addition, Jesus is so powerful and could do things that you or I will never be able to completely understand or figure out on our best day.
In the past, and even today, even Pastors and Priests have disagreements over many biblical subjects and meanings. Some simply can't be explained. That's where the one word comes in to play that gives us some rope, it's called Faith.
The Gospel of Luke was not written by the Apostle Luke. Show me any line in there in which the author states his name or identifies himself. The whole thing is written anonymously and we can be very sure that it was composed around 80-90 AD.
False. Luke was friends with Paul and of course you are leaving out the Holy Spirit and the power it holds.
In addition, Jesus is so powerful and could do things that you or I will never be able to completely understand or figure out on our best day.
In the past, and even today, even Pastors and Priests have disagreements over many biblical subjects and meanings. Some simply can't be explained. That's where the one word comes in to play that gives us some rope, it's called Faith.
The Gospel of Luke was not written by the Apostle Luke. Show me any line in there in which the author states his name or identifies himself. The whole thing is written anonymously and we can be very sure that it was composed around 80-90 AD.
****The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.
***Luke wrote two works, the third gospel, an account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and the Book of Acts,
I don’t believe that we evolve virtue. There is no set of genetic traits that you can select for the cause people to behave in a kind, loving, and merciful way. Besides, history is replete with examples of people and civilizations who refused to live peacefully with their neighbors. I’m sure I don’t need to get into specifics. War and conflict is the norm, not the exception.
Besides, the evolutionary explanation does not answer the primary question. You might be able to explain how our species evolved to behave cooperatively, but you cannot tell me why I should behave in any particular way. And that explanation has no power to stop anyone from behaving in any way they choose towards me.
“Our group vs your group” yes and that same fighting is also found in other apes, where clans will fight for territory and resources. But you still need a group. Even a hermit will need to have some level of education and resources that they got from a group in order to survive.
Is it not in your own self interest to get along with the people around you? Start stealing from and attacking your neighbors and we’re going to remove you from the group. And there are sociopaths and damaged and broken people who fit that category. But they’re a small minority overall and they are removed from their social groups, through a combination of isolation and shunning.
If you agree that humans as a species need to work together to survive, then it’s clearly in our interest, and yours, to do that.
I simply disagree. I don’t see anything in human history suggesting that cooperation outside of our immediate blood kin is instinctive. No one needs to be taught to fight, to steal what doesn’t belong to them, to go to war with the next tribe over. That is normal human behavior.
And again, evolution purports to explain how the “cooperative instinct” evolved. But it can’t tell me why I should behave in a kind, loving, and merciful way. Sure, you could make the case that it’s to my advantage, but again that doesn’t tell me why. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which non-cooperation is advantageous.
Trying to build an ethic around social utility alone is difficult at best. I think it fails to the end. You need something eternal to hang your epistemological hat on, so to speak
Luke was written 50 to 60 years after Jesus’ death by people who never knew him.
False. Luke was friends with Paul . . .
Oh, dear. The Gospel that is called Luke received its name in the latter part of the second century CE. Serious scholars (those who haven't formed their "conclusion" in advance) don't accept authorship of Luke (and Acts) by a companion of Paul. For useful discussion, see .
The Gospel of Luke is the third of the New Testament's four canonical Gospels. It tells of the origins, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Together with the Acts of the Apostles, it makes up a two-v...
Everyone should be thankful for every $ invested in Olympic sports like this. Criticize the coverage, the quality but every minute of every stream is better than none.
The Gospel of Luke was not written by the Apostle Luke. Show me any line in there in which the author states his name or identifies himself. The whole thing is written anonymously and we can be very sure that it was composed around 80-90 AD.
****The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.
***Luke wrote two works, the third gospel, an account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and the Book of Acts,
Yes, the same author likely wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, yes that author admired Paul but we don’t know who he was. But we can be sure that, like Paul, the author never met Jesus of Nazareth.
Oh, dear. The Gospel that is called Luke received its name in the latter part of the second century CE. Serious scholars (those who haven't formed their "conclusion" in advance) don't accept authorship of Luke (and Acts) by a companion of Paul. For useful discussion, see .
I’m glad you behave that way. But ultimately you can’t explain why it’s good, other than a personal preference. You can’t hold anyone else to that same standard. You have no frame of reference that can be applied to the world around you.
It’s evolutionary. Humans are a social species. Our nearest relatives, the great apes, also live in social groups. We need to get along to survive as a species. The course that set early humans apart was our developing ability to clearly communicate using a wider range of vocalizations than other apes which led to the development of spoken language.
Because humans need a group to survive, it’s wired in our genes to cooperate. There are people in the world who have never heard of the God of Abraham in any capacity but still get along with their kin and neighbors just fine.
Where we fail is when we fail to recognize that we’re all human. And that can happen in both theists and atheist settings. Though I would argue that places like the Soviet Union, North Korea or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge demanded cult worship of the state and their figureheads.
So you've never read a history book and you don't know anything about great apes.
According to atheist logic who cares about anything?
Not true. It’s in my DNA to care for loved ones and do things that make me happy. It’s not in my DNA to believe in things that I cannot see or feel. My parents and grandparents believed everything older people told them but I was born into a world where evidence that they were wrong was easily found by those that are able and willing to look.
Please elaborate on the specific mechanisms at work in DNA that cause you to care for loved ones and not believe in things you cannot see or feel? How do you account for the DNA of other individuals who feel differently, and how can you construct a ethical code for humans to abide by if DNA dictates morality and that DNA varies from person to person?
False. Luke was friends with Paul and of course you are leaving out the Holy Spirit and the power it holds.
In addition, Jesus is so powerful and could do things that you or I will never be able to completely understand or figure out on our best day.
In the past, and even today, even Pastors and Priests have disagreements over many biblical subjects and meanings. Some simply can't be explained. That's where the one word comes in to play that gives us some rope, it's called Faith.
The Gospel of Luke was not written by the Apostle Luke. Show me any line in there in which the author states his name or identifies himself. The whole thing is written anonymously and we can be very sure that it was composed around 80-90 AD.
You have no idea when it was written or who wrote it. Scholars don't agree with you and I'd wager they know more about it than you do.
“Our group vs your group” yes and that same fighting is also found in other apes, where clans will fight for territory and resources. But you still need a group. Even a hermit will need to have some level of education and resources that they got from a group in order to survive.
Is it not in your own self interest to get along with the people around you? Start stealing from and attacking your neighbors and we’re going to remove you from the group. And there are sociopaths and damaged and broken people who fit that category. But they’re a small minority overall and they are removed from their social groups, through a combination of isolation and shunning.
If you agree that humans as a species need to work together to survive, then it’s clearly in our interest, and yours, to do that.
I simply disagree. I don’t see anything in human history suggesting that cooperation outside of our immediate blood kin is instinctive. No one needs to be taught to fight, to steal what doesn’t belong to them, to go to war with the next tribe over. That is normal human behavior.
And again, evolution purports to explain how the “cooperative instinct” evolved. But it can’t tell me why I should behave in a kind, loving, and merciful way. Sure, you could make the case that it’s to my advantage, but again that doesn’t tell me why. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which non-cooperation is advantageous.
Trying to build an ethic around social utility alone is difficult at best. I think it fails to the end. You need something eternal to hang your epistemological hat on, so to speak
Chimps live in groups of 15 to 150 individuals and that and their patch of forest is their world and violence within the groups themselves is rare. The difference for us is that we can recognize that the whole world is much larger than our small patch and that those people thousands of miles away are also humans just like us and deserve just as much freedom and safety as we feel that we merit.
Give me a long term scenario in which non-cooperation is to the net benefit. Sure, some people perpetuate their whole lives as thieves and frauds but it’s not without risk and it’s not a tenable path for most.
I think that time itself may be the only eternal component that exists and yet I want to be a good and moral member of this planet, as do most non-believers.
Most atheists are okay. But there are millions of rapes and robberies and murders committed every year in the world. Christians can not commit those crimes.
It’s evolutionary. Humans are a social species. Our nearest relatives, the great apes, also live in social groups. We need to get along to survive as a species. The course that set early humans apart was our developing ability to clearly communicate using a wider range of vocalizations than other apes which led to the development of spoken language.
Because humans need a group to survive, it’s wired in our genes to cooperate. There are people in the world who have never heard of the God of Abraham in any capacity but still get along with their kin and neighbors just fine.
Where we fail is when we fail to recognize that we’re all human. And that can happen in both theists and atheist settings. Though I would argue that places like the Soviet Union, North Korea or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge demanded cult worship of the state and their figureheads.
So you've never read a history book and you don't know anything about great apes.
Got it.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand for someone who treats random twitter accounts as gospel.
So you've never read a history book and you don't know anything about great apes.
Got it.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand for someone who treats random twitter accounts as gospel.
You're claiming to know more about the gospel authors than scholars and claiming to know more about Paul than the Apostles and you think I'm the arrogant one.
The Gospel of Luke was not written by the Apostle Luke. Show me any line in there in which the author states his name or identifies himself. The whole thing is written anonymously and we can be very sure that it was composed around 80-90 AD.
You have no idea when it was written or who wrote it. Scholars don't agree with you and I'd wager they know more about it than you do.
You’ll be very happy to learn that they actually do. It was likely written by a very educated person who knew the Greek language very well and was a fan of Paul, and was written somewhere between 80 and 90 AD. The credit to “Luke” as a physician and companion to Paul, first appeared around 180 AD.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand for someone who treats random twitter accounts as gospel.
You're claiming to know more about the gospel authors than scholars and claiming to know more about Paul than the Apostles and you think I'm the arrogant one.
LOL!!
I have stated nothing that is not current mainline expert opinion on the Gospels.
You have no idea when it was written or who wrote it. Scholars don't agree with you and I'd wager they know more about it than you do.
You’ll be very happy to learn that they actually do. It was likely written by a very educated person who knew the Greek language very well and was a fan of Paul, and was written somewhere between 80 and 90 AD. The credit to “Luke” as a physician and companion to Paul, first appeared around 180 AD.
The first explicit claim that Paul wrote it appeared in 180 AD. That doesn't mean there was no evidence prior to that.
Scholars agree that the person who wrote Luke also wrote Acts. Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul in 64 AD so it seems silly to claim it was written 20 years later.
It was also dedicated to Theophilus. It's absurd to think an "anonymous" work would be dedicated to a likely patron.
According to atheist logic who cares about anything?
Not true. It’s in my DNA to care for loved ones and do things that make me happy. It’s not in my DNA to believe in things that I cannot see or feel. My parents and grandparents believed everything older people told them but I was born into a world where evidence that they were wrong was easily found by those that are able and willing to look.
Silly. There's nothing "in DNA" about caring for loved ones. DNA is a polymer not a feeling you are conflating the two. What you really mean is you have a human nature which does all these things but that would prove the rest of your statement wrong. Also even if all that is true is "DNA" there is no reason you should not be completely self interested because why should you care if humanity survives, you won't.
no religion has "logic", all based on fear, insecurity, and inability to reason
You have no idea what you are talking about. Classical theism is a well reasoned position and theres a reason people in the West held it for thousands of years. Read one ecumenical council and try to understand it and then say there is no thinking involved
