Jump to content

Iatros


Recommended Posts

Iatros this is the title Paul ascribes to luke in 1 Colossians 4:14. It makes him a "doctor" in roman times. However, this is not as glorious as one would think. As this class of doctors are not Archiater whom relate closest to medical doctors of today. The Iatros are self taught former slaves and are often akin to snake oil salesman pre 100AD the profession of doctors was highly frowned upon except for military doctors who served in the field. Often the Iatros based their healing qualities on mythological foundations.

 

Now why does all this matter? what is the point in putting the reference to Luke as a doctor in context of the times and not our modern interpretation matter?

 

Because of this

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/25/contradictions-how-did-judas-die

 

The  apologist excuse for this contradiction hinges on the fact that luke was a "doctor" and being a "doctor" would give a more medical description (which he doesn't) in his account of Judas's death. They go into the bloating etc of what happened with the body however luke doesn't. The deception in these types of excuses is it plays on our modern interpretation of what a doctor is not what they actually were.

 

All of this is besides the fact because LUKE is NOT an eyewitness to the account he is merely retelling what was told to him as stated in his previous letter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "Luke" didn't write anything and neither did anyone named Matthew, Mark, or John. These were names that were attached to what would eventually become known as the gospels years after they had been transcribed by unknown parties from oral stories that circulated in various communities.

 

 

 

That is why the idea that if “original” autographs existed the “true” gospels would be known is false. There never was an original autograph. All the writings were based on oral traditions and each one was different because they came from different communities with different versions.

 

 

Myth busters strikes again!    woohoo.gif 

 

 

 

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

 

by Bart Ehrman

 

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/B006QS02F8

 

Book description it is often said, even by critical scholars who should know better, that “writing in the name of another” was widely accepted in antiquity. But New York Times bestselling author Bart D. Ehrman dares to call it what it was: literary forgery, a practice that was as scandalous then as it is today. In Forged, Ehrman’s fresh and original research takes readers back to the ancient world, where forgeries were used as weapons by unknown authors to fend off attacks to their faith and establish their church. So, if many of the books in the Bible were not in fact written by Jesus’s inner circle—but by writers living decades later, with differing agendas in rival communities—what does that do to the authority of Scripture?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing a t.v. evangelist preaching, and whenever he quoted from Luke he referred to him as "Dr. Luke." What an idiot.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                          bill                                                                                                                                               

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who wrote the gospels? Bart Ehrman

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk

 

 

Who Wrote The Gospels by Randel McCraw Helms"

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Gospels-Randel-Helms/dp/0965504727

 

 

Book Description
 A study of the minds of the authors

The names we associate with the gospel writers are all second century guesses. If this comes as a surprise, welcome to the cutting edge of modern biblical scholarship. According to Helms, the gospels were written to convert or confirm their highly colored arguments of powerful authors, not just transparent windows upon the historical Jesus. If we adjust our focus from the brilliant imaginative pictures to the imaginations that produced them, to the situations out of which they arose, we get to the point of this book - a study of the minds of the authors.

 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah  I have read and watched a lot of Bart Erhman's  work it really helped me get over the hump in terms of xtianity. However in regards to Christians especially when you are trying to point out blatant contradictions they do come from a position where the  authors  are who they  say they  are. It would be necessary to bring this up but I would assume it would be in a different context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Other arguments are made concerning the authorship of Acts, but none of them are conclusive. The thesis that the vocabulary of Luke-Acts is special to a physician was deflated by H. J. Cadbury in his dissertation The Style and Literary Method of Luke (the saying goes that Cadbury earned his doctorate by depriving Luke of his!).

     Earlychristianwritings

 

          mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general public is simply not aware there is even such a thing as a scholarship dedicated to the historical critical analysis of religion. That information is certainly not going to be made available to people by the church because they know that is their Achilles Heel.

 

 

The churches house of cards is supported by the foundational belief that the bible is fully inspired, inerrant, and therefore infallible. Historians can easily destroy that myth. Once the bible is established as nothing more than a collection of ancient myths and legends its power to dominate people’s lives is nullified and Christianity's house of cards will collapse; and that would take numerous financial empires down with it. The church cannot allow that to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever a church does know of biblical, historical scholarship, they give a distorted view of what it shows. This is exactly what they do when defending "intelligent design" against evolution.   This dishonest way of arguing just underscores their whole mythical belief system.      bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.