If you look at the in bible narrative you are both wrong.This is what @Sanoy was writing
Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?
Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?
It seems I'm unable to convince @Sanoy that he is mistaken about his beliefs so I was seeing if I can get Christians here to back me up.
My belief is that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and maybe Q. I don't think Luke had access to the complete book of Matthew.
I thought it would be better to start a new topic about this.
Writing and knowing the tradition are not the same thing.In that Luke was the first to write.
People take books and re-write them as screenplays. This was similar to the scribes who took quotations and stories and assembled them into books of scripture making them more descriptive and flowing in nature.
The gospel stories existed in the oral tradition for four to six or seven decades before being written down by second or third generation Christians.
In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This research focused on societies which were largely illiterate. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. The researchers discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.
So what do you make of the given claims being made in Luke 1:1-4, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 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, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."The gospel stories existed in the oral tradition for four to six or seven decades before being written down by second or third generation Christians.
We're told his story came from first generation witnesses/servants
I don't exactly understand your point. Are you saying that those written words we read in those verses actually stem from a previous unwritten oral tradition? Because if that is the case then the words "I too decided to write" are plainly out of place.It did. The oral tradition described what happened. This was then written down later. It was written down so that a common reference point could be had to verify what the original witnesses had seen and heard. This does not make the oral tradition wrong. The writing serves to verify the oral tradition and to keep people from modifying it.
I am saying that, but they are not out of place at all.Because if that is the case then the words "I too decided to write" are plainly out of place.
One big unknown is how much of that would be available for investigation by this author while things are still fresh in people's minds.
Agreed. It was the Jewish way along with scrolls which documented said oral history. The written word was not an exact copy of the oral tradition however, any more than our description of events today would be until put into the words of an essay or compacted journalistic record.The gospel stories existed in the oral tradition for four to six or seven decades before being written down by second or third generation Christians.
Definitely so, however one can usually depend on a female recollection of a male's unfortunate event to last forever.My wife and I have been married 46 years and we find that our memories of the same events can be quite different. Eyewitness testimony of long ago events can be quite "iffy".
I'm not quite sure what point you're making here. We don't know what "I too" refers to. It might well be Mark, maybe Matthew, but also other documents we don't have now. But these documents don't necessarily include all known information about Jesus. So Luke could certainly have used oral tradition that hadn't yet been written. The consensus is that two of his sources were written: Mark, and Q. But there's information that is only in Luke. It could have been previously unwritten oral material. And while Q is generally thought to have been written, it's conceivable that it wasn't.I don't exactly understand your point. Are you saying that those written words we read in those verses actually stem from a previous unwritten oral tradition? Because if that is the case then the words "I too decided to write" are plainly out of place.
I can see that. One of the more vivid explanations I ran across was from a prosecuting attorney. When he reviewed eyewitness statements from a crime scene that was fresh in everyone's mind, he would read differing descriptions of the suspect. One person says he's 5 foot eleven while another claims he's 6 foot two. But they all agree he was a taller man.My wife and I have been married 46 years and we find that our memories of the same events can be quite different. Eyewitness testimony of long ago events can be quite "iffy".
There seems to be a source that Matthew and Luke have in common: (maybe just oral)
The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel
They both mention Bethlehem, Nazareth, David, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel, and that Mary was betrothed to marry Joseph.
Apparently a lot of Matthew and Luke is word-for-word from Mark and Mark is believed to have been written about 15 years before.
I think many verses in Matthew have the same wording as Mark (or at least I've heard this is the case with Luke and Mark)
Hello J C. Great thread and topic.JohnClay said: ↑
It seems I'm unable to convince @Sanoy that he is mistaken about his beliefs so I was seeing if I can get Christians here to back me up.
My belief is that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and maybe Q. I don't think Luke had access to the complete book of Matthew.
I thought it would be better to start a new topic about this.
Luke 1:3 it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus,Act 7:58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
BABerean2 said: ↑The Book of Matthew was addressed mainly to a Jewish audience. Jesus was telling the Jews of His time that something similar to 167 BC would happen during 70 AD
Luke’s Gospel was written to more of a Gentile audience, so he spelled it out for them.
Matthew 24:3and what the sign of Thy parousia<3952> and full-consummation<4930> of the Age?
Mark 13:4 Tell us! when these shall be?
and what the sign whenever may be being about<3195> all these to be fully-consummated<4931>.
Luke 21:7 And what the sign whenever may be being about<3195> these to becoming<1096>?
According to all Scripture, in perfect harmony, Yahuweh Himself Inspired/ Breathed ALL SCRIPTURE through men of His Choosing andIt seems I'm unable to convince @Sanoy that he is mistaken about his beliefs so I was seeing if I can get Christians here to back me up.
My belief is that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and maybe Q. I don't think Luke had access to the complete book of Matthew.
I thought it would be better to start a new topic about this.
Used to have a problem with olde english but prefer it now over todays pc translations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?