|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
deerbreh writes: You make a lot of assumptions about how the gospels were written that cannot be independently verified. And furthermore, most people in the 1st century were illiterate, there were no printing presses, no newspapers, no books or pamphlets - so to talk about the "gospels being circulated" in a form that "the authorities" could find and squash is rampant speculation at best. most of the population was illiterate??? Are you really saying that because there were no newspapers or books or pamphlets most people were illiterate??? ancient nations invented the written word without books, newspapers and pamphlets...give them some credit. The apostles and early disciples were able to read and write, Jesus was reading aloud in the synagogues from a young age so I think you can safely conclude that most people could read and write in the first century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
deerbreh writes: How does pretending the bible says something based on your preconceived notions of how and why it was written show "respect" for it? Luke says that Jesus was 'about 30 years of age when he began his ministry' please explain how this cannot mean 30 years of age... paulk says it could mean 28 or 33 I am not pretending, i believe that Luke wrote exactly what he meant to write...if you can read another age into it then perhaps there is a lack of honest review going on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: Since Luke didn't write about the events of 70 AD it is entirely possible that he would not have mentioned it. The more so since Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD. who changed lukes version and when? And if its known to have been changed, they must also know what it was changed from which means they must have earlier writings to prove that...what manuscripts do they look at to show that its been changed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: I'm saying that the Olivet Discourse has been changed between the earliest account found in Mark (and Matthew) and the version found in Luke. And the changes indicate that the originator of the new version knew what had happened in 70 AD. What is the earliest account of Mark/Mathew that you are referring to, which manuscript is it based upon? and which manuscipt of Luke are you comparing them to??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Paul please dont treat me like an imbocile.
You stated in the msg above...
PaulK writes: Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD. I ask you for evidence for such a claim that "Lukes version of the Olivet discourse appears to have been changed from that found in Mark"and you say thats not what you said Its not up to me to provide you evidence that it has not been changed, its up to you to prove back up your statement with evidence for such a change Btw, im sure you realise that standard texts are merely translations and all translations appear slightly different, so please dont tell me thats your evidence for saying that Luke has been changed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Michimus writes: es, most of the population was illiterate. In fact, 97% of the population was illiterate. quote:Source Conclusion - Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. Did you read the whole article or just the conclusion?
quote: Reference 7. Susan Guettel Cole, 'Could Greek Woman Read and Write?', Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity, New York - London - Paris 1981, pp. 219-245. I dont know how much faith I would put on his figures LOL . If you are basing this on females in ancient isreal, then sure, i dont doubt it. Most of them probably were illiterate because educating women was something men condemned...see Jewish oral traditions for more information on that. But the men in Isreal were most definitely literate as many bible writers attest to this fact. Part of the mosaic law was that fathers should teach their children by reading repetitively the Mosaic law. There is also the scribes or Sopherim who were trained copyists of the law and they spent their lives in this profession making copies of the Mosaic law. Jesus, a poor carpenter, could read. He did not attend a formal school so obviously his father Joseph was a tutor to him as was required by the law... as were his apostles who the priests recognized as being 'unlettered and ordinary' meaning they were not schooled in the formal system, yet they could write. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: That's not true. If you had simply asked for evidence I would have given it - as I have just done. Instead you asked for the WRONG evidence, based on a misunderstanding of what I said. you have not done so at all You are backtracking because you made a claim that you cannot backup. As I said, If the manuscript of Luke has been changed, then there must be other manuscripts that show this to be the case, otherwise how is it known that the Luke has been changed. You cannot name a manuscript that shows such a change so now you are doing a backflip and saying i made a mistake in what you had said LOL give me a break!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
a researcher who admits there is no data for the ancient culture he's writing about, and who is using modern day data to try to formulate a picture of an ancient culture
I dont care what you think about my ego, but there seems to be something very odd about using modern data to come up with figures of an ancient culture you dont find that even remotely unlikely???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
LOL@Michamus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4950 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
deerbreh writes: "About 30" does not mean "exactly 30". If Luke had meant to be specific he would have said, "Jesus was 30 years of age when he began his ministry." It doesn't say that. You are pretending that it does. That isn't respecting the word, it is reading your bias into it. No respect is shown when you do that. The intellectual dishonesty is yours. I know it does not mean exactly 30. As i said above, 'it would mean 30 plus up to 12 months' but if Jesus was 31 or 32 or 33 etc, there was nothing stopping Luke from writing it that way...if he could write '30' he could just as easily have written '31' or '32' or '33'
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024