Who Is Theophilus?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[smoodock]

Smoo:

what have I done that you haven’t?

But as I was presenting other choices, I presented them as some others' choices, not my own. I was as dismissive as them as you I am of yours. All the choices, including yours, were based on the flimsiest of pertinent phrases.

I don't know about whom Luke was speaking. I don't think anyone does or a has any way of finding out with what we have now. That is the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing.

Well, while you have every right to be dismissive of whatever you please, I don’t see how you can seriously lump them all together as you are doing. The only option that has been presented by either you or me that has any support whatsoever that one might glean from the text is that Theophilus is the High Priest and the son of Annas. All the choices with this one exception are pure presumption from start to finish. They are the guesses of some groups of people, but those guesses are based upon absolutely nothing that I am aware of. Can you point to Scriptural support that **might** be used to support any of these other offerings? I don’t see any evidence of any kind for anything,  except what I have put forward for discussion on this thread.

I may be wrong about the implications I perceive as possibly supporting Theophilus as High Priest; nevertheless, those implications are there within the text. You may dismiss the fact that Luke, unlike the other Gospel writers, does not put the family of Annas in a bad light in the sense that he puts the names out there for all to see. If Theophilus is the High Priest, he would know who those unnamed High Priests were. You have every right to dismiss this implication as pointing to the identity of Theophilus, but do you know of a good reason that Luke did what he did in not following the manner of the other Gospel writers in this matter? I have looked elsewhere and can find no good reason for him doing so, but if Theophilus is the High Priest, suddenly this puzzle piece has meaning.

[Howiedds]

Smoo:

The only option that has been presented by either you or me that has any support whatsoever that one might glean from the text is that Theophilus is the High Priest and the son of Annas.

I don't agree. Your choice is as specious as any other. With all the people that it could be, you have focused on this High Priest because it fits your preference for an early date for Luke's Gospel. For you to claim anything else is disingenuous. 

All the choices with this one exception are pure presumption from start to finish.

LOL! And yours is not presumption from start to finish! You're dreaming.

They are the guesses of some groups of people, but those guesses are based upon absolutely nothing that I am aware of.

Include yourself in "some groups of people."

Can you point to Scriptural support that **might** be used to support any of these other offerings? I don’t see any evidence of any kind for anything,  except what I have put forward for discussion on this thread.

You're delusional if you think anything you offered begins to approach scriptural support. What? Luke goes light on his criticism of the family of High Priests. Shoot! What more scriptural support could anyone ask for? Your assumptions are no stronger than those that claim Jesus didn't exist. Pull your head out and see the sunshine, will ya?

 

You may dismiss the fact that Luke, unlike the other Gospel writers, does not put the family of Annas in a bad light in the sense that he puts the names out there for all to see.

I wouldn't think of dismissing such firm scriptural support. What more could anyone need? I think you ought to start a church with it.

[smoodock]

Smoo:

The only option that has been presented by either you or me that has any support whatsoever that one might glean from the text is that Theophilus is the High Priest and the son of Annas.

I don't agree. Your choice is as specious as any other. With all the people that it could be, you have focused on this High Priest because it fits your preference for an early date for Luke's Gospel. For you to claim anything else is disingenuous.

So, if I agree with you, then I forfeit the debate/discussion, but if I disagree then I am disingenuous. Gee! It must be nice to have such power over people. Is this how you solve all your discussions of late? My argument has no foundation, and, if I don’t agree with you, I am a hypocrite! Well, I guess that solves everything doesn’t it? :-)

All the choices with this one exception are pure presumption from start to finish.

LOL! And yours is not presumption from start to finish! You're dreaming.

That is it? You laugh and I am dreaming? You have thus far offered no reason why what I offer has no weight. You merely claim it is presumption on my part in an effort to show Luke’s Gospel is written much earlier than what you would concede it could have been written. I have offered several Scriptures, of which you have not refuted. You just don’t wish to play! You claim I’m not being fair, because I’m not playing by your rules, so all you offer is: “You’re dreaming!” and for me to “…claim anything else is disingenuous.”

What can I say to that?

They are the guesses of some groups of people, but those guesses are based upon absolutely nothing that I am aware of.

Include yourself in "some groups of people."

Is this a command or do I have a choice in where I place myself?

Can you point to Scriptural support that **might** be used to support any of these other offerings? I don’t see any evidence of any kind for anything,  except what I have put forward for discussion on this thread.

You're delusional if you think anything you offered begins to approach scriptural support. What? Luke goes light on his criticism of the family of High Priests. Shoot! What more scriptural support could anyone ask for? Your assumptions are no stronger than those that claim Jesus didn't exist. Pull your head out and see the sunshine, will ya?

Again, all you offer are put-downs (“...delusional …pull (my) head out (of my ass)” You have not addressed my argument at all. I have asked for someone—anyone to show through logic or otherwise why my proposition does or does not work …or if by chance some other proposition works better. This and nothing more has been my argument from the beginning.

I have endeavored to support my proposition with what little I have, but you have not addressed what I put forward. Instead, you have addressed me, virtually telling me I ought to be ashamed to even present the proposal in the first place.

You have every right to do as you have done. Others on this board and other boards have done likewise and more. Nevertheless, all this approach shows is the one using such tools has no real argument to present against what has been proposed.

You may dismiss the fact that Luke, unlike the other Gospel writers, does not put the family of Annas in a bad light in the sense that he puts the names out there for all to see.

I wouldn't think of dismissing such firm scriptural support. What more could anyone need? I think you ought to start a church with it.

Thank you, but the church I attend serves me well enough. The Lord has satisfied me with it for the past 24 years.

[SteveC]

Smoo:

The only option that has been presented by either you or me that has any support whatsoever that one might glean from the text is that Theophilus is the High Priest and the son of Annas.

I don't agree. Your choice is as specious as any other. With all the people that it could be, you have focused on this High Priest because it fits your preference for an early date for Luke's Gospel. For you to claim anything else is disingenuous.

So, if I agree with you, then I forfeit the debate/discussion, but if I disagree then I am disingenuous. Gee! It must be nice to have such power over people. Is this how you solve all your discussions of late? My argument has no foundation, and, if I don’t agree with you, I am a hypocrite! Well, I guess that solves everything doesn’t it? :-)

All the choices with this one exception are pure presumption from start to finish.

LOL! And yours is not presumption from start to finish! You're dreaming.

That is it? You laugh and I am dreaming? You have thus far offered no reason why what I offer has no weight. You merely claim it is presumption on my part in an effort to show Luke’s Gospel is written much earlier than what you would concede it could have been written. I have offered several Scriptures, of which you have not refuted. You just don’t wish to play! You claim I’m not being fair, because I’m not playing by your rules, so all you offer is: “You’re dreaming!” and for me to “…claim anything else is disingenuous.”

What can I say to that?

They are the guesses of some groups of people, but those guesses are based upon absolutely nothing that I am aware of.

Include yourself in "some groups of people."

Is this a command or do I have a choice in where I place myself?

Can you point to Scriptural support that **might** be used to support any of these other offerings? I don’t see any evidence of any kind for anything,  except what I have put forward for discussion on this thread.

You're delusional if you think anything you offered begins to approach scriptural support. What? Luke goes light on his criticism of the family of High Priests. Shoot! What more scriptural support could anyone ask for? Your assumptions are no stronger than those that claim Jesus didn't exist. Pull your head out and see the sunshine, will ya?

Again, all you offer are put-downs (“...delusional …pull (my) head out (of my ass)” You have not addressed my argument at all. I have asked for someone—anyone to show through logic or otherwise why my proposition does or does not work …or if by chance some other proposition works better. This and nothing more has been my argument from the beginning.

I have endeavored to support my proposition with what little I have, but you have not addressed what I put forward. Instead, you have addressed me, virtually telling me I ought to be ashamed to even present the proposal in the first place.

You have every right to do as you have done. Others on this board and other boards have done likewise and more. Nevertheless, all this approach shows is the one using such tools has no real argument to present against what has been proposed.

You may dismiss the fact that Luke, unlike the other Gospel writers, does not put the family of Annas in a bad light in the sense that he puts the names out there for all to see.

I wouldn't think of dismissing such firm scriptural support. What more could anyone need? I think you ought to start a church with it.

Thank you, but the church I attend serves me well enough. The Lord has satisfied me with it for the past 24 years.

Crying like a baby doesn't offer much in the way of scriptual support either.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but if you want them validated by Howie, it's not going to happen. The Gospel writers don't appear to care that you know who Theophilus is. I'd take what you've got and get over it. You're going to believe that Mr. Unknown is a high priest anyway, but you're not going to be able to go to your buddies and brag that you got the esteemed Mr. Howie, the Jew, to agree with you. What part of vague don't you understand about Howie's position. I can just picture you all giggly with excitement, like a high school cheerleader, at the propect of an impending touchdown.

[smoodock]

Crying like a baby doesn't offer much in the way of scriptual support either.

“Crying”—is that what you think I am doing?

You're entitled to your beliefs, but if you want them validated by Howie, it's not going to happen. The Gospel writers don't appear to care that you know who Theophilus is. I'd take what you've got and get over it. You're going to believe that Mr. Unknown is a high priest anyway, but you're not going to be able to go to your buddies and brag that you got the esteemed Mr. Howie, the Jew, to agree with you. What part of vague don't you understand about Howie's position. I can just picture you all giggly with excitement, like a high school cheerleader, at the propect of an impending touchdown.

Do I appear to express a need to have my beliefs validated by Howie, you, or anyone else? While I certainly was looking for confirming OR opposing points of view—which could be supported with Scripture or otherwise—I was not looking for anyone’s certification of what I believe. I’ll take my stand, lumps included and decide for myself what I believe and “validation” be damned.

Concerning what the Gospel writers care for me to know, how do you know? You certainly don’t point to any source for your understanding.

[SteveC]

Crying like a baby doesn't offer much in the way of scriptual support either.

“Crying”—is that what you think I am doing?

LOL, yes - go back and read your post. You did more complaining about not getting your way then anything else.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but if you want them validated by Howie, it's not going to happen. The Gospel writers don't appear to care that you know who Theophilus is. I'd take what you've got and get over it. You're going to believe that Mr. Unknown is a high priest anyway, but you're not going to be able to go to your buddies and brag that you got the esteemed Mr. Howie, the Jew, to agree with you. What part of vague don't you understand about Howie's position. I can just picture you all giggly with excitement, like a high school cheerleader, at the propect of an impending touchdown.

Do I appear to express a need to have my beliefs validated by Howie, you, or anyone else? While I certainly was looking for confirming OR opposing points of view—which could be supported with Scripture or otherwise—I was not looking for anyone’s certification of what I believe. I’ll take my stand, lumps included and decide for myself what I believe and “validation” be damned.

Yes, you absolutely do appear to need your claims validated by Howie. Howie gave you his opinion ay least 4 or 5 times and yet you still come back complaining like a baby. After the second response you should have realized Howie would not change his mind. Anything after that clearly indicates an obsessional need.

Concerning what the Gospel writers care for me to know, how do you know? You certainly don’t point to any source for your understanding.

First of all, I don't have to provide any sources, you do. You are the one making the bizarre claims, the onus is on you to provide conclusive evidence, not speculation.

Secondly, my evidence is supported by the fact that Theophilus is an unknown to anyone who doesn't behave like a fawning 13 year old school girl.  Your evidence is flimsy at best.

[smoodock]

LOL, yes - go back and read your post. You did more complaining about not getting your way then anything else.

I did go back—several times, but I suppose the tears you see, as is often said of beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder. The complaining I had done had to do with my poster not addressing my opening questions. Both you and he may believe whatever you please about my demeanor.

Yes, you absolutely do appear to need your claims validated by Howie. Howie gave you his opinion ay least 4 or 5 times and yet you still come back complaining like a baby. After the second response you should have realized Howie would not change his mind. Anything after that clearly indicates an obsessional need.

I guess you read his post differently than I do.


Smoo:

Concerning what the Gospel writers care for me to know, how do you know? You certainly don’t point to any source for your understanding.

Steve:

First of all, I don't have to provide any sources, you do. You are the one making the bizarre claims, the onus is on you to provide conclusive evidence, not speculation.

Secondly, my evidence is supported by the fact that Theophilus is an unknown to anyone who doesn't behave like a fawning 13 year old school girl.  Your evidence is flimsy at best.

My mistake! I must backup whatever I say, but you may deny my premise without showing support and still be taken seriously. Okay! I got it! :-)

Concerning what is "secondly", ignorance can never be used as evidence. The lack of concrete evidence for the identity of Theophilus is no reason not to pursue his identity through circumstantial means via textual criticism.

[Today]

• Religion gets ugly by CCC460 [Today at 02:21:47 PM]
• God No Longer Male by SteveC [Today at 11:04:09 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 06:34:27 AM]
• Jewish Understanding by kwd111 [Today at 05:37:00 AM]
• Mayans Answer Questions A... by SteveC [September 08, 2010, 03:57:03 PM]
• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [September 07, 2010, 10:31:39 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [September 07, 2010, 12:09:55 PM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87138
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 61
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 3
Guests: 20
Total: 23

CCC460
kwd111
Coachbob