This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Proof Luke did not write Acts

#1DarkContractorPosted 5/20/2013 5:39:57 PM
Acts 1:1-2 "In the first book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."

However, our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke do not mention 24:51 (or verse 12 for that matter) at all. In fact, it isn't until the 4th century that we get Luke recording the Ascension See: http://greeknewtestament.net/lk24-51

Inexplicably, this falsifies verse 2, as the original author of Luke did not write about the Ascension.

Furthermore, that leaves Matthew as the one source left of the Ascension (as Mark and John do not mention it either, much like how the epistles of John do not mention the Ascension whatsoever).

And there, Jesus teaches a trinity baptism. Yet in multiple instances in Acts people are baptized in the name of Jesus rather than the Trinity. I believe this is evidence of Christian theology being legend, with bits and pieces added onwards as the Church grew.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#2OrangeWizardPosted 5/20/2013 5:52:37 PM
From: DarkContractor | #001
However, our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke do not mention 24:51 (or verse 12 for that matter) at all


Therefore, because it's not there, he must not have written it!
Brilliant!
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#3DagorhaPosted 5/20/2013 5:55:57 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: DarkContractor | #001
However, our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke do not mention 24:51 (or verse 12 for that matter) at all


Therefore, because it's not there, he must not have written it!
Brilliant!


well if it isn't in the earliest manuscripts then it is unlikely that it would be in any earlier ones if we can establish a trend which means the line was added to future manuscripts since there is no reason why it wouldn't be there.
---
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut
#4DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/20/2013 6:02:52 PM(edited)
From: OrangeWizard | #002
From: DarkContractor | #001
However, our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke do not mention 24:51 (or verse 12 for that matter) at all


Therefore, because it's not there, he must not have written it!
Brilliant!

From: DarkContractor | #001
However, our earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke do not mention 24:51 (or verse 12 for that matter) at all


Therefore, because it's not there, he must not have written it!
Brilliant!


The first four words actually mean that it was all in one book. You can't appeal to what if's on this one. The moment you are talking about "what if Luke did write about it and we just don't know about it!?!?" you are no longer making a relevant point because the moment you are talking about Luke writing about the Ascension you are no longer talking about Luke writing the Gospel.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#5OrangeWizardPosted 5/20/2013 6:06:43 PM
I just don't buy that these manuscripts SHOULD have had the verse included at all. Of the pictures I've seen in manuscripts, they're often in poor shape. ripped, crumpled, decaying, and sometimes just a piece smaller than your hand.

I don't know how all the manuscripts fit on the timeline, and I don't know which ones include the bit and which ones don't.
Of course, this timeline would have to be complete with all the manuscripts that we have, so as not to distort the data.

And that doesn't even account for any manuscripts we haven't found yet, which could alter the data further.


So no, this is far from proof.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#6DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/20/2013 6:17:17 PM(edited)
From: OrangeWizard | #005
I just don't buy that these manuscripts SHOULD have had the verse included at all. Of the pictures I've seen in manuscripts, they're often in poor shape. ripped, crumpled, decaying, and sometimes just a piece smaller than your hand.

I don't know how all the manuscripts fit on the timeline, and I don't know which ones include the bit and which ones don't.
Of course, this timeline would have to be complete with all the manuscripts that we have, so as not to distort the data.


You're just appealing to ignorance there. You have zero evidence that the line was ever there. And none of the Gospels include the Ascension except for Matthew, so it's not like it's some crazy stretch of the imagination.



And that doesn't even account for any manuscripts we haven't found yet, which could alter the data further.


So no, this is far from proof.


Really? "BUT I MEAN IF WE DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WE'D HAVE EVIDENCE SO THERE NYAH NYAH POO POO"

based on all the empirical data available, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are not the same author.

i mean really, this rebuttal was so... pointless? might as well say "what if we found evidence that Jesus was not the son of God!" WHOA MY GOD.

the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Luke did in fact write about the Ascension, it's not mine to disprove it, you cannot disprove a negative. You can however ask yourself what conditions will be true if that negative statement "Luke did not write about the Ascension" is true. And the statement "We have no evidence of Luke writing about the Ascension" would be true if so, and it is in fact true, and completely falsifiable. So by the very fact there COULD be evidence of Luke writing about this (and likely, as the Ascension was one of the most miraculous parts of the Gospels), but there isn't actually strengthens my argument. Good day.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#7OrangeWizardPosted 5/20/2013 6:19:47 PM
From: DarkContractor | #004
The moment you are talking about "what if Luke did write about it and we just don't know about it!?!?" you are no longer making a relevant point because the moment you are talking about Luke writing about the Ascension you are no longer talking about Luke writing the Gospel.


I'm saying "are manuscripts are damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it's not clear whether he could have written it or not?"
"Do we have a sufficient pool of data to determine that this is a trend, and not a coincidence?"

For example, any contemporary manuscripts that DO include the verse would mess up the "trend"
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#8OrangeWizardPosted 5/20/2013 6:43:21 PM
From: DarkContractor | #006
You're just appealing to ignorance there.


Like "since it isn't there he didn't write it" you mean?

You have zero evidence that the line was ever there.


Your list of manuscripts is seemingly incomplete. I have a short list of manuscripts that do include the verse, and they're nowhere to be found on that greeknewtestament.com page.

Where do these manuscripts appear on that list? At the bottom? Near the top? That information matters if you want to develop a trend.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#9DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/20/2013 6:50:14 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #007
From: DarkContractor | #004
The moment you are talking about "what if Luke did write about it and we just don't know about it!?!?" you are no longer making a relevant point because the moment you are talking about Luke writing about the Ascension you are no longer talking about Luke writing the Gospel.


I'm saying "are manuscripts are damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it's not clear whether he could have written it or not?"
"Do we have a sufficient pool of data to determine that this is a trend, and not a coincidence?"

For example, any contemporary manuscripts that DO include the verse would mess up the "trend"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus One of our best, most complete manuscripts - Does not have verse 51. Here's a photo of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinaiticus_text.jpg

and a 'trend' being broken does not matter several centuries afterwards. Since scribes were known to add or remove things all the time, it makes sense they would have had no choice but to add that bit about the Ascension once they realized the conflict it made with the Church's view that Acts and Luke included the same authorship.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#10DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/20/2013 6:51:39 PM
From: OrangeWizard | #008
From: DarkContractor | #006
You're just appealing to ignorance there.


Like "since it isn't there he didn't write it" you mean?

You have zero evidence that the line was ever there.


Your list of manuscripts is seemingly incomplete. I have a short list of manuscripts that do include the verse, and they're nowhere to be found on that greeknewtestament.com page.

Where do these manuscripts appear on that list? At the bottom? Near the top? That information matters if you want to develop a trend.


The very earliest one you could have is P75, iirc.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya