Luke's Gospel

2PhiloVoid · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
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, but Paul is not. Paul saw Jesus for the first time on the road to Damascus, but Jesus was clearly not a flesh-and-blood person at the time because Jesus had already resurrected and ascended to heaven, not to mention the fact that Paul's companions did not have the same experience.

So I'd like to know what the standard Christian answer is for this, if there is one. Please don't say that Luke's source was Paul, because, as I said, Paul was not an eyewitness of anything. Please don't say that Luke used Mark and "Q" because I'm only interested in explanations that make Luke either an eyewitness or a person with direct access to one. Thanks.

I'd say that Luke is an eyewitness in the sense that he was an active participant in some of the events which are summarily alluded to in the central part of his opening statement in his gospel, and this is seen where he says something about "those things believed/fulfilled among us."

From what I understand of Luke's overall context which is evident in both of his works together [Luke & Acts], the phrase "those things believed/fulfilled among us" includes more than just that Jesus lived, preached, died and rose again, but it also implies the additional fulfillment "of things" seen in the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit which brought Christ's Church into existence among the Jewish people, as well as those further various works done by God, the Holy Spirit afterward--one of which was to knock Saul of Tarsus on his behind and turn him around--in order to help bring the Gentiles into the body of Spiritual Israel alongside those Jews who were already followers of Jesus.

In this "sense," one could say that Luke is a kind of eye-witness to a portion of "those things believed/fulfilled among us (emphasis on the word 'US') since he was an actual traveling companion of Paul who worked for some time in and among Paul's LARGE networked entourage of fellow believers, and much of this is substantially implied in the later half of the book of Acts by all of those additional 'us' and 'we' passages [beginning in chapter 16].

So, who were Luke's sources? It was most likely some of the persons who are found among the litany of names which crop up in the book of Acts, maybe even some of whom are listed in the Gospel of Luke. Who knows how many of these named people Luke was privy to having a personal conversation with and/or to having an ongoing, written correspondence? I would imagine it would be quite a few of them at least.

However, this is my own brief contextualized conclusion, so if you haven't heard this angle before, then that's why you haven't, although, some of what I'm thinking seems to be implied also by J. Warner Wallace.

Barney2.0 · Aug 1, 2018

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses since they knew Jesus, Mark and Luke although not personal eyewitnesses probably had access to people who witnessed the events recorded in the Gospels.

cvanwey · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
What do you mean?

I should have clarified. The word 'you' was meant to be a euphemism, (as in the ones whom reply in an attempt to justify or validate the OP).

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

JIMINZ said:
.
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.

That doesn't answer my question. No source is being named.

JIMINZ said:
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?

Go re-read the thread. I've explicitly stated that I don't think Luke was an eyewitness, nor do I think this is the Christian position.

You're fully in the wrong for inferring that X is my position if I'm asking how it is that X is true.

JIMINZ said:
.
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?

The thread is asking what Luke's sources were. Do you have them?

JIMINZ said:
.
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.

I said Paul was not around for the events of the gospels, and I'm 100% correct. I'd appreciate it if you stopped ignoring the context of what I'm saying and then rambling on and on about how you think I'm wrong.

JIMINZ said:
.
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.?

Let's focus on the main question of the thread: What was Luke's source?

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
I'd say that Luke is an eyewitness in the sense that he was an active participant in some of the events which are summarily alluded to in the central part of his opening statement in his gospel, and this is seen where he says something about "those things believed/fulfilled among us."

From what I understand of Luke's overall context which is evident in both of his works together [Luke & Acts], the phrase "those things believed/fulfilled among us" includes more than just that Jesus lived, preached, died and rose again, but it also implies the additional fulfillment "of things" seen in the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit which brought Christ's Church into existence among the Jewish people, as well as those further various works done by God, the Holy Spirit afterward--one of which was to knock Saul of Tarsus on his behind and turn him around--in order to help bring the Gentiles into the body of Spiritual Israel alongside those Jews who were already followers of Jesus.

In this "sense," one could say that Luke is a kind of eye-witness to a portion of "those things believed/fulfilled among us (emphasis on the word 'US') since he was an actual traveling companion of Paul who worked for some time in and among Paul's LARGE networked entourage of fellow believers, and much of this is substantially implied in the later half of the book of Acts by all of those additional 'us' and 'we' passages [beginning in chapter 16].

So, who were Luke's sources? It was most likely some of the persons who are found among the litany of names which crop up in the book of Acts, maybe even some of whom are listed in the Gospel of Luke. Who knows how many of these named people Luke was privy to having a personal conversation with and/or to having an ongoing, written correspondence? I would imagine it would be quite a few of them at least.

However, this is my own brief contextualized conclusion, so if you haven't heard this angle before, then that's why you haven't, although, some of what I'm thinking seems to be implied also by J. Warner Wallace.

Can you simplify this for me a bit?

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

Al Masihi said:
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses since they knew Jesus, Mark and Luke although not personal eyewitnesses probably had access to people who witnessed the events recorded in the Gospels.

This doesn't explain anything.

BigDaddy4 · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
For the purposes of this thread I'm granting not only the Bible but also Christian tradition to be 100% factual.

If this is really true, then...

Nihilist Virus said:
Given that much, I'm still not even getting a straight answer. I just want to know who was the source for Luke.

... the "source" is the Holy Spirit, and that should be acceptable for you given what you have granted for the purposes of this thread.

Actual names of who Luke talked to are not cited, which is an imposition of 20th century academics into events that happened 2,000 years or so ago. Back then, the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses was enough to establish fact. Also keep in mind that, in context, this was a letter to Theophilus, a fellow believer, not some academic research paper.

This is not a problem for most Christians, but may be for those who are critical of Christianity.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
Can you simplify this for me a bit?

...and here I thought I had simplified it all quite a bit, NV. ^_^

I mean, I can't imagine that someone with your acumen would be confused by what someone like myself would say, but... what part 'confuses' you at the moment?

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

BigDaddy4 said:
If this is really true, then...

... the "source" is the Holy Spirit, and that should be acceptable for you given what you have granted for the purposes of this thread.

No. Certain things are given and certain things are expected in return. For you to just assign me what you think my expectations should be and then claim victory is just silly.

I simply expect to know what Luke's source was, given that I've heard all my life that the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

Actual names of who Luke talked to are not cited, which is an imposition of 20th century academics into events that happened 2,000 years or so ago. Back then, the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses was enough to establish fact. Also keep in mind that, in context, this was a letter to Theophilus, a fellow believer, not some academic research paper.

Not relevant to the thread.

This is not a problem for most Christians, but may be for those who are critical of Christianity.

Also not relevant.

I just want to know what Luke's source was. The Holy Spirit is a silly answer.

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
...and here I thought I had simplified it all quite a bit, NV. I mean, I can't imagine that someone with your acumen would be confused by what someone like myself would say, but... what part 'confuses' you at the moment?

Was Luke an eyewitness for all of the gospel events he recorded, or was he only an eyewitness for some of them, or for none?

2PhiloVoid · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
Was Luke an eyewitness for all of the gospel events he recorded, or was he only an eyewitness for some of them, or for none?

I assume that Luke was not present for the specific work of the Holy Spirit that was involved in the resurrection of Jesus; but he was present for other works of the Holy Spirit as he traveled around with Paul and others of the earliest churches. So, he would have been privy to witnessing some seemingly supernatural works in his association with Paul, and he very well could have met persons who knew Jesus Himself and who witnessed the resurrection, such as figures like Peter, John or James, among others.

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
I assume that Luke was not present for the specific work of the Holy Spirit that was involved in the resurrection of Jesus; but he was present for other works of the Holy Spirit as he traveled around with Paul and others of the earliest churches. So, he would have been privy to witnessing some seemingly supernatural works in his association with Paul, and he very well could have met persons who knew Jesus Himself and who witnessed the resurrection, such as figures like Peter, John or James, among others.

So would you agree that Luke did not witness all of the relevant gospel events, that he required sources for them, and that we don't know who those sources are?

Dirk1540 · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
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?

Honestly, I seem to lack the ability to get into some things without my posts becoming insanely long lol

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

Dirk1540 said:
Honestly, I seem to lack the ability to get into some things without my posts becoming insanely long lol

How about a yes or no then? Do you know who Luke's human eyewitness source(s) was/were or not?

2PhiloVoid · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
So would you agree that Luke did not witness all of the relevant gospel events, that he required sources for them, and that we don't know who those sources are?

Correct. We don't "know" who those sources are in an exacting, Modern way, but we can still make coherent estimations about who those sources very well could have been.

I mean, we'd have to be complete idiots to ignore the hermeneutical insights that are evident in Luke's gospel and in Acts, particularly since we can well assume that the social structures in place in that part of the world at that time would have provided Luke with many social interactions even beyond those that he alludes to or are described by him. Obviously, if Luke "got around" between various areas in Macedonia and also over to Jerusalem, then the guy would have had a lot of sources from which to draw; we can intelligently surmise that he didn't live in a social vacuum, and in fact, no direct divine inspiration would even have been needed for him to write his two accounts.

JIMINZ · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
That doesn't answer my question. No source is being named.

Go re-read the thread. I've explicitly stated that I don't think Luke was an eyewitness, nor do I think this is the Christian position.

You're fully in the wrong for inferring that X is my position if I'm asking how it is that X is true.

The thread is asking what Luke's sources were. Do you have them?

I said Paul was not around for the events of the gospels, and I'm 100% correct. I'd appreciate it if you stopped ignoring the context of what I'm saying and then rambling on and on about how you think I'm wrong.

Let's focus on the main question of the thread: What was Luke's source?

.
Sorry but you are wrong, you just have a pile of glib answers to everyone who has posted to this thread.

Christians do not care if Luke was not an eyewitness, what he wrote in his Gospel was in fact the truth, you don't like the fact his sources were not named, that is really of no consequence Luke is in the Canon of the Bible and he isn't going to be removed no matter how much sand you throw up into the air.

Does Luke's Gospel affect your Salvation?

NO. ......I thought not.

Don't worry about it Christians are fine with what Luke wrote and who he got his information from.

Have a good day anyway. :wave:

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Correct. We don't "know" who those sources are in an exacting, Modern way, but we can still make coherent estimations about who those sources very well could have been.

I mean, we'd have to be complete idiots to ignore the hermeneutical insights that are evident in Luke's gospel and in Acts, particularly since we can well assume that the social structures in place in that part of the world at that time would have provided Luke with many social interactions even beyond those that he alludes to or are described by him. Obviously, if Luke "got around" between various areas in Macedonia and also over to Jerusalem, then the guy would have had a lot of sources from which to draw; we can intelligently surmise that he didn't live in a social vacuum, and in fact, no direct divine inspiration would even have been needed for him to write his two accounts.

So if we leave out all the fluff and just focus on the direct question, the answer is no, the source for Luke is not known.

Nihilist Virus · Aug 1, 2018

JIMINZ said:
.
Sorry but you are wrong, you just have a pile of glib answers to everyone who has posted to this thread.

Christians do not care if Luke was not an eyewitness, what he wrote in his Gospel was in fact the truth, you don't like the fact his sources were not named, that is really of no consequence Luke is in the Canon of the Bible and he isn't going to be removed no matter how much sand you throw up into the air.

Does Luke's Gospel affect your Salvation?

NO. ......I thought not.

Don't worry about it Christians are fine with what Luke wrote and who he got his information from.

Have a good day anyway.

Please, if you're going to gish gallop and insult me, at least catch yourself up to what's been said on the thread first. You've contributed nothing here.

JIMINZ · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
I simply expect to know what Luke's source was, given that I've heard all my life that the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

You have been misled by those who have said the to you, Luke clearly says he isn't right in the beginning of his Gospel.

But then again, if you had taken the time to read Luke's Gospel you would have known for yourself what he actually claimed.

You cannot blame others for your lack of knowledge.

To answer your question.

NO, Luke was not an eyewitness to the events which were depicted in his Gospel.

I assume now that you have an answer to your question we can close this thread, or will this become just another dead horse issue?

Have a good day anyway. :wave:

JIMINZ · Aug 1, 2018

Nihilist Virus said:
Please, if you're going to gish gallop and insult me, at least catch yourself up to what's been said on the thread first. You've contributed nothing here.

.
The problem is there isn't a problem, but you keep harping on it as though by doing so you will be able to prove something.

I'm just telling you,.......... no one cares.

Have a good day anyway. :wave:

Luke's Gospel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads