Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

[SeekingAllTruth]

There are good arguments that suggest that luke and acts where written in the 50s those arguments where already provided by me and

There are important events that are not recorded in acts (death of peter death of Paul, fall of the temple etc) implying that maybe* the documents where written before such events.

But sure if you demand 100% certainty and/or conclusive evidence for a 55AD date you won’t find it.

What we can show conclusively is that the author of Luke and Acts had access to good reliable information about stuff that happened in the mid 1st century…. So ether he was a witness, or he knew the witnesses or had access to good sources.............
Given that , the date of the document and the name of the author become secondary and irrelevant.

The scholars who wrote the report looked at the exact same evidence you are quoting right now and they still came up with a date of 115 CE. Why do you think that is? Do you also think the scholars are agents of the devil trying to trip up Christians from believing Acts was written before the fall of Jerusalem? You realize of course that the ONLY reason Christians want to get the date to before 70 CE is so that they give some kind of crazy validity to the belief Jesus predicted jerusalem's fall, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not immovable about the exact date of 55 CE. It may well have been a few years later, but the argument is not about a few years, but about decades!

Luke's account in the book of Acts ends abruptly in about 63 CE, so there is no history in Acts and Luke after this date. We also know, from the prologue to Acts [Acts 1:1], that the Gospel of Luke was completed before the book of Acts, so Luke is likely to have been completed well before 63 CE, and before he started writing the book of Acts. This date is supported by the fact that the siege of Jerusalem (during the Jewish Revolt 66-73 CE) is not mentioned in Acts, an oversight that would have been unimaginable given the implications of the event.

An adversarial spirit still attempts to undermine the inspired word of God, but the accumulated evidence of two thousand years is not so easily undermined!

Acts is about Paul. It is not about the temple. When Paul is dead, as far as the author knows, that is the natural time for the narrative to end. Leaving out the siege of Jerusalem that had nothing do with the writings and works of Paul leaving it off is far from an oversight. There is no logical reason at all that Luke was written before 63 CE.

 

[Trailblazer]

the accumulated evidence of two thousand years is not so easily undermined!

Nor is it necessarily correct.

 

[leroy]

There was nothing at all amazing for someone from that time knowing those facts. They only support the claim that the author of Luke was from the first century. It means that Luke was likely not written in the 2nd century CE or later, but no one is arguing that at any rate. The problem is that when a major plot point is shown to be wrong due to a major history error one cannot claim that one he is either a liar or incompetent at that point

There was nothing at all amazing for someone from that time knowing those facts.

Well that is the point, you have a testimony from someone who lived in the correct time and place…… what else do you want?

The problem is that when a major plot point is shown to be wrong due to a major history error one cannot claim that one he is either a liar or incompetent at that point

The real reason for why joseph went to Bethlehem is not a mayor part of the plot, its at most a minor mistake,

But even more important when it comes to the burial of Jesus (which is the topic that gave origin to our conversation) we have Luke/Mark + John + Paul as sources……so even if you claim that Luke is mainly fiction with a few bits of history, the burial should be included as part of those bits of history.

 

[leroy]

The scholars who wrote the report looked at the exact same evidence you are quoting right now and they still came up with a date of 115 CE. Why do you think that is? Do you also think the scholars are agents of the devil trying to trip up Christians from believing Acts was written before the fall of Jerusalem? You realize of course that the ONLY reason Christians want to get the date to before 70 CE is so that they give some kind of crazy validity to the belief Jesus predicted jerusalem's fall, right?

Sure some scholars say 115 others 80s and others before the 60s, there is no evil conspiracy, just disagreement.

You realize of course that the ONLY reason Christians want to get the date to before 70 CE is so that they give some kind of crazy validity to the belief Jesus predicted jerusalem's fall

No that’s not the only reason, other reasons have been provided to you.

Besides that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, are you suggesting that Luke omitted the fall of the temple because he knew that modern scholars where going to use that omission to date the gospels in the 50s?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Sure some scholars say 115 others 80s and others before the 60s, there is no evil conspiracy, just disagreement.


No that’s not the only reason, other reasons have been provided to you.

Besides that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, are you suggesting that Luke omitted the fall of the temple because he knew that modern scholars where going to use that omission to date the gospels in the 50s?

But the thrust of my inquiry was that Song says she believes these scholars are agents of the devil or something to lead Christians astray from the truth (as SHE sees it, sadly). Do you also believe the same, else why are you pushing for a date before 70 CE? It doesn't make sense. Just go with the date of 115 CE the scholars ascribe to it. The Christian scholars pushing for before 70 CE obviously are biased, right? Else why would they be pushing for a pre-70 CE date so hard??????

The excuses Song gives for why she believes it's 55 CE are bogus. Simply knowing relevant details of a period is no evidence the people writing about that time were actually present. Authors today write fabulous accounts of the Civil War and Lincoln. You'd swear they were actually there the detail is so accurate but they weren't there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is the point, you have a testimony from someone who lived in the correct time and place…… what else do you want?

Support from someone that has not drunk the Kool-Aid to an extent further than "Christians exist"

The real reason for why joseph went to Bethlehem is not a mayor part of the plot, its at most a minor mistake,

Do you seriously think that he would take such a journey? And yes, it is a serious mistake since there was no "virgin myth" prophesy in the Old Testament. There can be a problem when one bases one's beliefs on a book that was translated once and one takes a verse out of context. The verse did not use the word "virgin", nor was it a prophesy about Jesus. I

But even more important when it comes to the burial of Jesus (which is the topic that gave origin to our conversation) we have Luke/Mark + John + Paul as sources……so even if you claim that Luke is mainly fiction with a few bits of history, the burial should be included as part of those bits of history.

Yes, technically only one source. You need more than one source. And this has been explained to you. I am not doing so again. Besides one source you really need something from someone that did not believe the Jesus myth. No such support is to be found.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Acts is about Paul. It is not about the temple. When Paul is dead, as far as the author knows, that is the natural time for the narrative to end. Leaving out the siege of Jerusalem that had nothing do with the writings and works of Paul leaving it off is far from an oversight. There is no logical reason at all that Luke was written before 63 CE.

This is rubbish. If you read the book of Acts, you'll discover that it relates to both the history of the early Church and the missionary journeys of Paul. Paul's missionary journeys took him from Jerusalem, where Peter and other elders lived, to various places in the Roman Empire. Had Jerusalem been under siege during these years, it would have inpacted Paul's return to that city.

You need to explain why the siege of Jerusalem does not appear in Luke's writings. It's a stumbling block for those who place the writings of Luke later than 70 CE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is rubbish. If you read the book of Acts, you'll discover that it relates to both the history of the early Church and the missionary journeys of Paul. Paul's missionary journeys took him from Jerusalem, where Peter and other elders lived, to various places in the Roman Empire. Had Jerusalem been under siege during these years, it would have inpacted Paul's return to that city.

You need to explain why the siege of Jerusalem does not appear in Luke's writings. It's a stumbling block for those who place the writings of Luke later than 70 CE.

Paul was dead by then. The title of Acts tells you why. It is the Acts of the Apostles. It is not a history of Israel.

Historians do not make your error. They know that Luke was about the life of Jesus. Jesus died long before the siege. Acts was mainly about Paul and some about the rest of the apostles. We hear nothing of the apostles or Paul after 63 CE.

 

[leroy]

But the thrust of my inquiry was that Song says she believes these scholars are agents of the devil or something to lead Christians astray from the truth (as SHE sees it, sadly). Do you also believe the same, else why are you pushing for a date before 70 CE?

I don’t push the date before the 70s, I said that there are good arguments in both sides. The fact that Luke didn’t report important events like the fall of the temple, the death of peter or the death of Paul suggest that maybe the document was written before those events.

It doesn't make sense. Just go with the date of 115 CE the scholars ascribe to it. The Christian scholars pushing for before 70 CE obviously are biased, right? Else why would they be pushing for a pre-70 CE date so hard??????

Only a small minory say 115, most scholars date it within the 70s or 80s

The excuses Song gives for why she believes it's 55 CE are bogus. Simply knowing relevant details of a period is no evidence the people writing about that time were actually present. Authors today write fabulous accounts of the Civil War and Lincoln. You'd swear they were actually there the detail is so accurate but they weren't there.

Yes its evidnce, just not conclusive evidence.

Only 2 type of people know detailed information about Lincon

1 People that lived in that period of time

2 People that lived after with access to good and reliable sources

The same can be said about Luke, ether he lived in the mid 1st century or he lived in the second century and had acces to good and reliable information ….i don’t see the problem, in ether case it follows that Luke was in a position to know stuff about Jesus and the disciples, therefore he is a good source.

 

[leroy]

Support from someone that has not drunk the Kool-Aid to an extent further than "Christians exist"

Well again that is raising the bar unrealistically to high, obviously early Christians are the one who would have known (and care about) the death of Jesus and whether if he was buried or not.

Besides its a theologically irrelevant detail, Jesus could have still risen from the death and forgive our sins, even if he was thrown in to a common grave., so why would the author lie?

Iamgine that historians from the future can only find information about the death of Lincon in American sources, would you therefore conlude that the sources are junk?

Do you seriously think that he would take such a journey? And yes, it is a serious mistake since there was no "virgin myth" prophesy in the Old Testament. There can be a problem when one bases one's beliefs on a book that was translated once and one takes a verse out of context. The verse did not use the word "virgin", nor was it a prophesy about Jesus. I

I don’t know, quite frankly I haven’t done any research un the historicity of the trip to Bethlehem, …. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, … the whole virgin birth story is a myth, then what? at most you can say that Luke was wrong in that specific detail, you shouldn’t throw all his work.

As I said before, according to the Jewish historian Josephus Adam was a real and historical person, would you therefore thorw all his work to the trashcan? Or would you say “Josephus is a good source, that had some mistakes”

Yes, technically only one source. You need more than one source. And this has been explained to you. I am not doing so again. Besides one source you really need something from someone that did not believe the Jesus myth. No such support is to be found.

You have mi}multiple independent authors reporting the same event, this is what I mean with “independent sources” …. If you say that “indepednent sources” has another defection, then just let me know which word should I use

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well again that is raising the bar unrealistically to high, obviously early Christians are the one who would have known (and care about) the death of Jesus and whether if he was buried or not.

Besides its a theologically irrelevant detail, Jesus could have still risen from the death and forgive our sins, even if he was thrown in to a common grave., so why would the author lie?

Iamgine that historians from the future can only find information about the death of Lincon in American sources, would you therefore conlude that the sources are junk?

Nope, it is the same standard applied to other sources.

I don’t know, quite frankly I haven’t done any research un the historicity of the trip to Bethlehem, …. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, … the whole virgin birth story is a myth, then what? at most you can say that Luke was wrong in that specific detail, you shouldn’t throw all his work.

As I said before, according to the Jewish historian Josephus Adam was a real and historical person, would you therefore thorw all his work to the trashcan? Or would you say “Josephus is a good source, that had some mistakes”

You are somewhat right. One need not throw out all of his work. Only the mythical parts. I am not denying that there was a person named Jesus, but no one can support the claims that need support and some of them can be shown to be wrong.

You have mi}multiple independent authors reporting the same event, this is what I mean with “independent sources” …. If you say that “indepednent sources” has another defection, then just let me know which word should I use

No, you do not. You still do not understand your error. I will merely point it out, I will not explain it to you again.

Well let me try just a little bit. Do you understand the in no way at all can anyone claim Matthew, Mark, and Luke to be independent?

 

[leroy]

Nope, it is the same standard applied to other sources.

And what standard is that?

You are somewhat right. One need not throw out all of his work. Only the mythical parts. I am not denying that there was a person named Jesus, but no one can support the claims that need support and some of them can be shown to be wrong.

It seems to me that you are denying the claim that Jesus was buried, why would you argue that this is a mythical part?

No, you do not. You still do not understand your error. I will merely point it out, I will not explain it to you again.

Well let me try just a little bit. Do you understand the in no way at all can anyone claim Matthew, Mark, and Luke to be independent?

Sure but John and Paul are independent from the canonical gospels. So even if you count Luke Matt and and Mark as “the same source” you still have 3 independent sources, reporting a fact that has zero theological significance……………so why would the authors conspire and invent the same lie?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me that you are denying the claim that Jesus was buried, why would you argue that this is a mythical part?

Because the evidence is quite strong against it and very weak for it.

Sure but John and Paul are independent from the canonical gospels. So even if you count Luke Matt and and Mark as “the same source” you still have 3 independent sources, reporting a fact that has zero theological significance……………so why would the authors conspire and invent the same lie?

No, that is not thought to be the case by many any longer. The author of John appears to have been very aware of the Gospel of Makr:

How the Gospel of John Uses and Completes the Gospel of Mark – Vridar

 

[Redemptionsong]

Paul was dead by then. The title of Acts tells you why. It is the Acts of the Apostles. It is not a history of Israel.

Historians do not make your error. They know that Luke was about the life of Jesus. Jesus died long before the siege. Acts was mainly about Paul and some about the rest of the apostles. We hear nothing of the apostles or Paul after 63 CE.

You have claimed that Luke mistook the census at the time of Jesus' birth with the census of 6 CE.

To prove you're wrong we only have to look at what Luke wrote. In Acts 5:37, Luke records a speech by Gamaliel, in which Gamaliel refers to the failed rebellion by Judas of Galilee. I want you to look this up because you'll discover that the rebellion took place in 6 CE when Judas and a group of zealots refused to accept the taxation imposed by the Romans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have claimed that Luke mistook the census at the time of Jesus' birth with the census of 6 CE.

To prove you're wrong we only have to look at what Luke wrote. In Acts 5:37, Luke records a speech by Gamaliel, in which Gamaliel refers to the failed rebellion by Judas of Galilee. I want you to look this up because you'll discover that the rebellion took place in 6 CE when Judas and a group of zealots refused to accept the taxation imposed by the Romans.

You do not understand logic. Just because he got one fact right does not excuse his other errors. He remembered the rebellion but forgot the ultimate cause of it.

The census was not needed until the sons of Herod failed and Rome took over the governorship of those areas. That was when a census was needed. That was when Rome could order a census. They could not when Judea was a semi-autonomous state that only paid tribute. The mistimes census in Luke is as bad as his road to Damascus story that does not even appear to agree with any account of Paul. Heck, he cannot even agree with himself.

 

[leroy]

You have claimed that Luke mistook the census at the time of Jesus' birth with the census of 6 CE.

To prove you're wrong we only have to look at what Luke wrote. In Acts 5:37, Luke records a speech by Gamaliel, in which Gamaliel refers to the failed rebellion by Judas of Galilee. I want you to look this up because you'll discover that the rebellion took place in 6 CE when Judas and a group of zealots refused to accept the taxation imposed by the Romans.

that is news to me, thanks for the data

Acts 5:37
English Standard Version

37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

Would you develope the argument more? How do you know that we are talking about the same census?

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is news to me, thanks for the data


Would you develope the argument more? How do you know that we are talking about the same census?

He is trying to use that to claim that there was a prior census. Of course there is no evidence of one and very good arguments against it. This is why I do not like apologetics. They are perfectly willing to accept history when it supports or even comes close to supporting the Bible and then they will loudly proclaim "history supports the Bible". But when history refutes the Bible they pretend that the history does not exist or they try to make weak excuses for the failure of the Bible. In other words they try to play a variation on the dishonest game of "Heads I win tails you lose". This is why I often call professional apologetics sites "Liars for Jesus".

 

[Redemptionsong]

that is news to me, thanks for the data


Would you develope the argument more? How do you know that we are talking about the same census?

We know that Luke writes both books, based on Acts 1:1.

Luke does not quote Gamaliel without knowing what Gamaliel is referring to in Acts 5:37. Judas of Galilee, or Gamala, is also mentioned by Josephus. He existed as a zealot leader who took up arms against Roman occupation and taxation. This occurred in 6 CE. So, Luke must have known about the census of 6 CE! If he knew about the 6 CE census he is definitely not confusing it with an earlier census conducted whilst Herod the Great was alive.

To this we must add the evidence of Tiberius' reign. Luke informs us, in Luke 3:1, that it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign (started 14 CE) that John was preaching and baptising. Jesus comes to John for baptism aged 'about thirty' (Luke 3:23). Allowing for a bit of flexi-room this takes us back to about 1 BCE for the birth of Jesus. Given that Herod's death is anywhere between 4 BCE and 1CE, this would match up just fine if Herod's death was nearer 1 CE than 4 BCE.

Luke knew when Tiberius became emperor. He knew when Jesus had reached 'about thirty' and he knew that Herod was king of Judea at the birth of Jesus. He must also have known that Cyrenius was governor of Syria at the time when Herod ruled in Judea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know that Luke writes both books, based on Acts 1:1.

Luke does not quote Gamaliel without knowing what Gamaliel is referring to in Acts 5:37. Judas of Galilee, or Gamala, is also mentioned by Josephus. He existed as a zealot leader who took up arms against Roman occupation and taxation. This occurred in 6 CE. So, Luke must have known about the census of 6 CE! If he knew about the 6 CE census he is definitely not confusing it with an earlier census conducted whilst Herod the Great was alive.

To this we must add the evidence of Tiberius' reign. Luke informs us, in Luke 3:1, that it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign (started 14 CE) that John was preaching and baptising. Jesus comes to John for baptism aged 'about thirty' (Luke 3:23). Allowing for a bit of flexi-room this takes us back to about 1 BCE for the birth of Jesus. Given that Herod's death is anywhere between 4 BCE and 1CE, this would match up just fine if Herod's death was nearer 1 CE than 4 BCE.

Luke knew when Tiberius became emperor. He knew when Jesus had reached 'about thirty' and he knew that Herod was king of Judea at the birth of Jesus. He must also have known that Cyrenius was governor of Syria at the time when Herod ruled in Judea.

This is poor reasoning. Luke may have remembered the rebellion. He had a hazy recollection at best since historians can demonstrate why there was no prior census.

Once again you are ignoring history when it contradicts the Bible. No, you are actually denying history. When you cherry pick you lose the ability to claim that history supports the Bible.