Luke's sources

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Luke's sources

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Stephan Huller wrote:You're not even trying to have a proper conversation.
But it seems that almost the whole forum is out there to have a proper conversation with mental flatliner. But maybe I missed the point :confusedsmiley: You know that my English is not very good
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Luke's sources

Post by Mental flatliner »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Stephan Huller wrote:You're not even trying to have a proper conversation.
But it seems that almost the whole forum is out there to have a proper conversation with mental flatliner. But maybe I missed the point :confusedsmiley: You know that my English is not very good
Thus the confusion.

Each participant in the forum is demanding that I repeat (in response to their specific request) information I've already given, and if I don't, they pretend I never responded at all.

For those who want in on a conversation, I expect them to take the time to "catch up" by reading the thread. To demand that I repeat each post for each participant is unreasonable.
User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: Luke's sources

Post by pakeha »

Mental flatliner wrote:
pakeha wrote:Not really.
In any case, you claim to have isolated Luke's sources.
Would you care to show why you think you've done so?
]You're lying about reading my prior posts. This has been asked three different times, and I gave the same answer each time.
pakeha wrote:Wrong again, Mental flatliner, about calling me a liar; I read your posts.
Your answer doesn't bear the weight of your claim, so I had hopes you had something more to back it up.
Do you?
Mental flatliner wrote:Peter's claim was that I isolated Luke's sources.
My claim was that I made the offer of naming them to someone else.

I then claimed that I would be willing to do so if those requesting made it past a fundamental difficulty.

This is all stated on the first page of this thread.

Read it this time.
Yes, all that was very clear, Mental flatliner, no need to reread it.
It's also clear you're not serious about your claim, so I'll not ask more about it.
A shame, I was hoping you had something interesting to share here.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Luke's sources

Post by Ulan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Stephan Huller wrote:You're not even trying to have a proper conversation.
But it seems that almost the whole forum is out there to have a proper conversation with mental flatliner. But maybe I missed the point :confusedsmiley: You know that my English is not very good
You may consider conversations like that with fundamentalists a waste of time, but I'm not sure that is always the case. Even if you know they are wrong, it sometimes helps to question the reasons why you think they are wrong. It improves your own case.

The same happened to the theory of evolution, by the way. All these assaults by creationists made it much better than before. It led to all the evidence being looked through again, departing with some obvious frauds, discovery of some exciting new aspects nobody had noticed before, and left the theory of evolution stronger than ever. So it's not all in vain.

Of course, it's everyone's own decision up to which point you still learn something from discussions like these. You won't keep these going forever.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Luke's sources

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Mental flatliner wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Stephan Huller wrote:You're not even trying to have a proper conversation.
But it seems that almost the whole forum is out there to have a proper conversation with mental flatliner. But maybe I missed the point :confusedsmiley: You know that my English is not very good
Thus the confusion.

Each participant in the forum is demanding that I repeat (in response to their specific request) information I've already given, and if I don't, they pretend I never responded at all.

For those who want in on a conversation, I expect them to take the time to "catch up" by reading the thread. To demand that I repeat each post for each participant is unreasonable.
Absolutely correct, mental. With this enormous influx of the other posters it is hard to you not to lose the overview.
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Luke's sources

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

Mental flatliner wrote:Luke was writing to Theophilus.
This tells us nothing since we don't know who Theophilus was and because that could be a nickname or a title or even a form of address to the audience as a whole.
Luke did not have the luxury of "era dating" as we do. He couldn't say "4 BC", he had to say "in the days of Herod the Great".
And Herod died ten tears before the census of Qurinius, so that's a major problem for Luke and shows that he did not get his nativity story from witnesses.

When telling the story of the gospel to Theophilus, Luke first gives context of time, who were the "players" at the time:
At the time of what? Luke was not writing about his own time.
the players were named, along with their respective territories. This is a clue as to either Luke's location, Theophilus' location, the area of Jesus' ministry, or a combination of all three.
This indicates that Luke read Josephus. Most all of the geographical and historical details found in Luke appear to be culled from Josephus.
This might have been done so that Theophilus could search daily reports available at the time, as well.
What "daily reports?" Who exactly was Theophilus? Where was he living? How was he getting 60 year old "daily reports" from a city that had been destroyed decades earlier?
Luke had no motivation whatsoever to name the "outliers":
"outliers" of what?
Idumea (south of Judea, irrelevant to the gospels)
Perea (east of the Jordan and Dead Sea)
Decapolis (east of the Sea of Galilee)
Tyre and Sidon (well outside the area of interest)
Once again, you're showing that you don't know your Gospels very well. Luke mentions Tyre and Sidon several times. He also mentions the Decapolis (that's where Jesus cast demons into pigs) and Perea (that's where Jesus was baptized and John the Baptist was beheaded).

Idumea is not mentioned by the Gsopels. Correct. So what? How does this tell you what his sources were?

What does any of this have to do with isolating sources? For sure one of Luke's sources was mark. Another was either Q or Matthew. Another was almost certainly Josephus. What other sources do you believe Luke had, and what was your methodology for "isolating" them and how are you able to do this without knowing Greek?
This is what it looks like when you allow the author to tell the story in his own words, in his own way, and in his own context.
This is what it looks like when one author edits the work of other authors together. It's not "his own way and his own words" when most of his material is copied verbatim from other sources.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Luke's source for the angel from heaven

Post by John T »

I am new to this forum so please forgive me if I do not address my question in the proper manner.

MentalFlatliner posted: I doubt you will never meet anyone who knows the gospels as I do. (If you're reading this, in case you can't take a hint, that's an open challenge).
*************************
Well, I'm taking you up on that challenge for I seek knowledge.

At the start of this thread Mental flatliner was quoted as saying: For an advanced discussion, ask me how I isolated most of Luke's sources and named a few of them. Peter Kirby then challenged Mental flatliner to do just that. Mental responded that if you read Luke it really isn’t much of a challenge. However, I have read Luke and I’m still very much challenged as to the reliable source for some of the most mysterious events in Luke. For example; who was the source for telling Luke about the angel from heaven strengthening Jesus in Luke 22:43? The scripture says the disciples were all asleep. When Jesus woke them up, he barely got one sentence out before Judas arrived with the officers of the temple.
I would like to hear from Mental flatliner who that particular source is for Luke.

Thanks in advance.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Luke's source for the angel from heaven

Post by Mental flatliner »

John T wrote:Well, I'm taking you up on that challenge for I seek knowledge.

At the start of this thread Mental flatliner was quoted as saying: For an advanced discussion, ask me how I isolated most of Luke's sources and named a few of them. Peter Kirby then challenged Mental flatliner to do just that. Mental responded that if you read Luke it really isn’t much of a challenge. However, I have read Luke and I’m still very much challenged as to the reliable source for some of the most mysterious events in Luke. For example; who was the source for telling Luke about the angel from heaven strengthening Jesus in Luke 22:43? The scripture says the disciples were all asleep. When Jesus woke them up, he barely got one sentence out before Judas arrived with the officers of the temple.
I would like to hear from Mental flatliner who that particular source is for Luke.

Thanks in advance.
This question has now come up 5 times as a result of Peter misquoting me in the OP.
I've explained 5 times that this offer was not made to the forum, it was made to a single participant.

The only way I'll continue this discussion (begun with Andrew) is when the forum overcomes it's bias against historical documents.

Until then it's a total waste of time. The ankle-biters in the forum will do nothing more than fill the thread with inane questions repeated ad nauseum and protests that they're not getting enough attention.

**************
Explanation #1: The bias this forum suffers from is that most of the participants attempt to alter, mask, edit, or omit primary historical source documents. This is a poison to the study of history, and it renders you unable to learn. I won't fight through that level of dishonesty as widespread as it is here just to demonstrate a point.

**************
Explanation #2: All you have to do is read Luke with a critical eye, and you'll discover exactly what I discovered. It's that easy. You don't really need my help.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re:I stuck my toe in and got bitten, serves me right.

Post by John T »

@Mental flatliner,

Clearly I misunderstood what you meant by 'open challenge'. What you really meant was a limited narrowly defined challenge to a specific person and not an open challenge to anyone else on the forum. I got that now.

Sorry about that.

Still, does that mean you don't know the source of Luke 22:43 or is it you are not willing to share your knowledge with me?

You appear to have a lot of knowledge on many topics and I was hoping you would know the answer.

JT
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Re:I stuck my toe in and got bitten, serves me right.

Post by Ulan »

John T wrote:Still, does that mean you don't know the source of Luke 22:43 or is it you are not willing to share your knowledge with me?
I guess it's "Luke was an eyewitness".

I'm very sorry if that disappoints you.
Post Reply