Luke's Gospel

[Halbhh]

You asked the question about the association of Luke and Paul and I answered it by showing they really did have a long association.

In post 39 you said somebody talked about Luke being an eyewitness, that was me.
I don't see how else Luke could have had perfect understanding from the beginning.

Why not trust Luke himself on that? He wrote --

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


Unless Luke was exceptionally unable and incompetent, we could expect he would have talked to a variety of any available old eye witnesses (in their 70s-80s for instance who were teens hearing Christ) but more numerous various listeners of already passed on witnesses who had directly heard these first hand accounts repeatedly. Why not expect Luke interviews a number of people, as suggested by saying 'investigated'. It's not hard at all for someone listening to any good number of recounted versions to compare. He need merely hear various versions from some number of people and compare and collaborate them.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You asked the question about the association of Luke and Paul and I answered it by showing they really did have a long association.

In post 39 you said somebody talked about Luke being an eyewitness, that was me.
I don't see how else Luke could have had perfect understanding from the beginning.

Why did he need other sources then?

 

[cvanwey]

For the purposes of this thread I'm granting not only the Bible but also Christian tradition to be 100% factual. Given that much, I'm still not even getting a straight answer. I just want to know who was the source for Luke. The main "answer" was where people were telling me to look at Luke 1:1-3 where Luke says he had sources. The Christians here literally think they're answering my question (What was Luke's source?) by saying that Luke had sources. Another person said that Luke personally witnessed gospel events, which is I think absurd even to Christians.

It doesn't say. So your answers will all be bias to the presupposition.

 

[Doug Melven]

Why not trust Luke himself on that? He wrote --

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


Unless Luke was exceptionally unable and incompetent, we could expect he would have talked to a variety of any available old eye witnesses (in their 70s-80s for instance who were teens hearing Christ) but more numerous various listeners of already passed on witnesses who had directly heard these first hand accounts repeatedly. Why not expect Luke interviews a number of people, as suggested by saying 'investigated'. It's not hard at all for someone listening to any good number of recounted versions to compare. He need merely hear various versions from some number of people and compare and collaborate them.

I just looked at Luke 1:3 in a bunch of other versions and some say he investigated, some say he had perfect understanding from the beginning and some say he was familiar with the events from the beginning.
https://biblehub.com/luke/1-3.htm
So whether he investigated from a bunch of people and relied on God to tell him who was giving him good information or as the Aramaic Bible in plain English says that He (doesn't say who He is) appeared to him and that's where he got it from it seems clear to me that he believed he had trustworthy sources and didn't see a need to reveal them to us.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It doesn't say. So your answers will all be bias to the presupposition.

I guess we've determined here that Luke is just a revision of previously existing documents along with its own sources that it couldn't be bothered mentioning. I don't understand why this is supposed to be OK.

 

[Dirk1540]

Great. But why'd you redact important parts of my post here?

I suppose that between the straw man that Paul was Luke’s only source, and the historical special pleading that Paul would be a worthless source of Christian history that that’s where my thoughts took me

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I suppose that between the straw man that Paul was Luke’s only source,

It's not a straw man. I've seen lots of Christians say it.

and the historical special pleading that Paul would be a worthless source of Christian history that that’s where my thoughts took me

Special pleading?

You know what an eyewitness is, right? You realize that Paul was NOT an eyewitness of the events of the gospel, right?

 

[Dirk1540]

I realize that a non-eyewitness can be an extremely effective historical investgator. Luke is actually the most impressive from a purely historical standpoint IMO and he wasn’t an eyewitness. I may have been reading into your OP too much as being more about the worthlessness of Paul

 

[cvanwey]

I guess we've determined here that Luke is just a revision of previously existing documents along with its own sources that it couldn't be bothered mentioning. I don't understand why this is supposed to be OK.

Chalk it up the the Council of Nicaea, whom decided to canonize such a 'gospel'

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I realize that a non-eyewitness can be an extremely effective historical investgator. Luke is actually the most impressive from a purely historical standpoint IMO and he wasn’t an eyewitness. I may have been reading into your OP too much as being more about the worthlessness of Paul

Ok. In addition to granting that Luke's two works are 100% factual, let's also say he was a great historian. Can we now get to the part where you tell me what his source was?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I just looked at Luke 1:3 in a bunch of other versions and some say he investigated, some say he had perfect understanding from the beginning and some say he was familiar with the events from the beginning.
https://biblehub.com/luke/1-3.htm
So whether he investigated from a bunch of people and relied on God to tell him who was giving him good information or as the Aramaic Bible in plain English says that He (doesn't say who He is) appeared to him and that's where he got it from it seems clear to me that he believed he had trustworthy sources and didn't see a need to reveal them to us.

"...he believed he had trustworthy sources and didn't see a need to reveal them to us."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Chalk it up the the Council of Nicaea, whom decided to canonize such a 'gospel'

My understanding is that the council determined that Jesus was God, as there was a 50/50 split on the matter. Some Christians became excommunicated heretics overnight as a result. The canonization of the NT is totally undocumented as far as I know but is mostly formed from the whims of Eusebius.

 

[cvanwey]

My understanding is that the council determined that Jesus was God, as there was a 50/50 split on the matter. Some Christians became excommunicated heretics overnight as a result. The canonization of the NT is totally undocumented as far as I know but is mostly formed from the whims of Eusebius.

It's definitely debatable. But Constantine was a believer, and he was arguably the catalyst (or one of them). My point is that bias to the belief drove the over-all 'conclusion' to the gospel...

 

[cvanwey]

Ok. In addition to granting that Luke's two works are 100% factual, let's also say he was a great historian. Can we now get to the part where you tell me what his source was?

Nope. Just like you can't with other verses, stating they are reliable eyewitness sources.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope. Just like you can't with other verses, stating they are reliable eyewitness sources.

What do you mean?

 

[JIMINZ]

So I'd like to know what the standard Christian answer is for this, if there is one. I'm only interested in explanations that make Luke either an eyewitness or a person with direct access to one.

The position most commonly held among Christians is that Matthew and John wrote their own gospels (or dictated them to an interpreter), that Peter dictated his gospel to Mark (or that Mark compiled the gospel on his own with Peter as his primary source), and that Luke got the information for his gospel from Paul. Matthew, John, and Peter are eyewitnesses and primary sources.Thanks

.
I don't know what the standard Christian answer would be but this is mine.

Trying to shed a different light on the verses, I went to the Greek, the rendering is.

Since many took in hand to draw up a narrative the matters, having been fully carried out among us as delivered to us the [ones] from [the] beginning eyewitnesses and attendants becoming of the Word, it seemed good to me also having investigated from their source all things accurately to write, to thee in order most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the reliability of the things concerning which thou wast instructed

Can't get it any closer than that.

 

[JIMINZ]

OK, thanks. How does this make Luke an eyewitness?

It just struck me, who said that Luke was an Eyewitness, because in the first 4 verses of His Gospel, he clearly states he is not.

Just what is it your attempting to prove, is it only why Luke's Gospel is in the Canon?

 

[JIMINZ]

I guess we've determined here that Luke is just a revision of previously existing documents along with its own sources that it couldn't be bothered mentioning. I don't understand why this is supposed to be OK.

.
Well here is another book which we could ask, why is this in the Canon, what possible value does it give to the 21 century Christian?....But there it is as bold as daylight right there at the end of the other two.....3 John 1:1-14, 2 John 1:1-13 isn't that much better but it's there as well.

What purpose does it serve, we all agree Luke used sources, so what, why does it bother you so much what we read and believe.

The Gospel of Luke does not Contradict any of the other three Gospels, and they do not Contradict his, what's the big deal?

 

[JIMINZ]

It's not a straw man. I've seen lots of Christians say it.



Special pleading?

You know what an eyewitness is, right? You realize that Paul was NOT an eyewitness of the events of the gospel, right?

.
You keep saying Paul was not present.

You are aware aren't you, that Paul held the raiment of those who stoned Stephen.

Verses to identify (Paul) who is speaking.
Act 22:3,4
3) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
4) And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Then Paul says.
Act 22:19-21
19) And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:
20) And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
21) And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

There isn't any other accounts as to what Paul might have witnessed but we know he persecuted the Church, and it is possible he witnessed may things concerning Jesus.

Therefore your assumption that Paul was not around, is not exactly correct.

I have posted these things just to clarify these facts about Paul's being present during the time of Jesus Ministry.

 

[JIMINZ]

It's not a straw man. I've seen lots of Christians say it.

.
You know, that is really strange, I have been a Born Again Christian sense 1968 and I have never heard what you have said about Paul and Luke until tonight.

You are an Atheist, where have you heard such things, because it isn't regular banter in any Churches I have attended in the last 50 yrs.?